Time frame as a determinant of accessibility of anaphoric demonstratives in Classical Arabic

Open access


The aim of this paper is to investigate the determinants for choosing nominal anaphoric demonstratives in Classical Arabic (CA) by examining their usage in a corpus of CA texts. The study makes use of Ariel’s (1990; 2001) concept of ‘unity’ as a theoretical framework from which to study the relationship between an anaphoric demonstrative, its antecedent and their shared referent. This study builds on Jarbou and Migdady’s (2012) findings that ‘anaphoric distance’ (Ariel, 1990; 2001) has not been found to be a primary determinant of cognitive accessibility concerning the use of anaphoric demonstratives in CA. The results of this study show that the choice of proximal/distal anaphoric demonstratives in CA depends primarily on the ‘time frame’ of the referent. Anaphoric demonstratives are temporally anchored in the present time of interaction; if a referent existed within a past time frame or is expected to exist within a future time frame (in relation to the interlocutors’ present time), that referent has low accessibility because of non-sharedness of time frame; if a referent existed or is experienced within a present time frame, it has high accessibility due to sharedness of time frame. Temporal distance replaces physical distance as a determinant of accessibility. In the corpus, proximal anaphoric demonstratives have been used in contexts of high accessibility while distal anaphors have been used in those of low accessibility. Findings of this study contribute to the dynamic view of demonstratives that textual/physical distance is not the primary or sole determinant of accessibility concerning demonstratives.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ariel M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics vol. 24 no. 1 pp. 65-87.

  • Ariel M. 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.

  • Ariel M. 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive Linguistics vol. 9 no. 3 pp. 189–238.

  • Ariel M. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In: T. Sanders J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren eds. Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 29–87.

  • Botley S. and McEnery T. 2000. Discourse anaphora: The need for synthesis. In: S. Botley and T. McEnery eds. Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 1-39.

  • Botley S. and Mcenery T. 2001. Proximal and distal demonstratives: A corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics vol. 29 no. 3 pp. 214-233.

  • Botley S. 2006. Indirect anaphora: Testing the limits of corpus-based linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics vol. 11 no.1 pp. 73-112.

  • Clancy P. 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In: W. Chafe ed. The pear stories: Cognitive cultural and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood NJ: Ablex pp. 127-201.

  • Cornish F. 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse text and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 40 no. 6 pp. 997-1018.

  • Diessel H. 1999. Demonstratives: Form function and grammaticalization. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Diessel H. 2006. Demonstratives joint attention and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics vol. 17 no. 4 pp. 463-489.

  • Diver W. 1984. The grammar of modern English (Textbook Linguistics G6801). Unpublished work.

  • Dixon R. 2003. Demonstratives: Cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language vol. 27 pp. 61-112.

  • Ehlich K. 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same similar or different? In: R. Jarvella and W. Klein eds. Speech place and action. Chichester: John Wiley pp. 315-338.

  • Francis G. 1994. Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In: M. Coulthard ed. Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge pp. 83-101.

  • Gernsbacher M. 1991. Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes vol. 6 no. 2 pp. 81-105.

  • Givon T. 1983. Topic continuity in English. In: T. Givon and Ute Language Program eds. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company pp. 43-93.

  • Gundel J. K. Hedberg N. and Zacharski R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language vol. 69 no. 2 pp. 274–307.

  • Gundel J. K. 2010. Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy Perspective International Review of Pragmatics vol. 2 no. 2 pp. 148-168.

  • Halliday M. A. K. and Hasan R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

  • Hanks W. 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology vol. 46 no. 2 pp. 191-220.

  • Hasselbach R. 2007. Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 107 no. 1 pp. 1-27.

  • Himmelmann N. P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox ed. Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 205-54.

  • Jarbou S. 2010. Accessibility vs. physical proximity: An analysis of exophoric demonstrative practice in Spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 42 no. 11 pp. 3078-3097.

  • Jarbou S. 2012. Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy. Pragmatics vol. 22 no.1 pp. 103-118.

  • Jarbou S. and Migdady F. 2012. Testing the limits of anaphoric distance in Classical Arabic: A corpus-based study. Research in Language vol. 10 no. 4 pp. 423-444.

  • Jarbou S. 2017. The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of the Singular Feminine Demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic. East-European Journal of Psycholinguistics vol. 4 no. 1 pp. 63-75.

  • Kirsner R. 1990. From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurian views of the modern Dutch demonstratives. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn and R. A. Geiger eds. Conceptualizations and mental processing in language: A Collection of Papers from the Duisburg Symposium on Cognitive Linguistics April 1989. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 81-114.

  • Kahneman D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist vol. 58 no. 9 pp. 697-720.

  • Lakoff R. 1974. Remarks on this and that. Papers from the Regional Meetings of Chicago Linguistics Society vol. 10 pp. 345-356.

  • Levinson S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lyons J. 1978. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Manning P. 2001. On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics vol. 43 no. 1 pp. 54-100.

  • Marchello-Nizia C. 2005. Deixis and subjectivity: The semantics of demonstratives in Old French (9th–12th Century). Journal of Pragmatics vol. 37 no.1 pp. 43-68.

  • Owens J. 2006. A Linguistic history of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Piwek P. Jan Beun R. and Cremers A. 2008. ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics vol. 40 no. 4 pp. 694-718.

  • Safwat A. (comp.) 1933. Jamaharat Khotab Al-Arab ‘Collection of the public speeches/sermons of the Arabs’ vol. 1. Beirut: Almaktaba Al3ilmiya.

  • Sidner C. 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In: M. Brady and R. Berwick eds. Computational models of discourse. Cambridge MA: MIT Press pp. 267-330.

  • Strauss S. 2002. This that and it in Spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences vol. 24 no. 2 pp. 131-152.

  • Stirling L. 2001.The Multifunctionality of anaphoric expressions: A typological perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics vol. 21 no. 1 pp. 7-23.

  • Taboada M. 2008. Reference centers and transitions in Spoken Spanish. In: J. K. Gundel and N. Hedberg eds. Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press pp. 167-215.

  • Walker M. A. Joshi A. K. and Prince E. F. eds. 1998. Centering theory in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 155 155 9
PDF Downloads 99 99 3