Plagas del arroz- su control y principales enemigos naturales

5.5.2.1 Accessibility analyses

Recall from §5.2 that some theories of proximal demonstratives treat their deictic content as con-cerning only the cognitive-perceptual accessibility of the referent. Under these theories, proxi-mal demonstratives index referents that have high cognitive-perceptual accessibility to the origo.

On the account of Piwek et al. (2008), the authors who develop this kind of analysis in greatest depth, referents can be highly accessible because they are within the origo's reaching space (i.e.

highly perceptually accessible via touch); because they are visually salient; because they are in joint attention; or because they have been recently mentioned in the discourse. Note that while joint attention is part of the de nition of accessibility, authors writing on joint attention (e.g.

Küntay and Özyürek 2006; Peeters et al. 2015) generally do not adopt accessibility analyses as such. Instead, those authors treat the spatial and joint attention properties of demonstratives as orthogonal.

For the Ticuna proximals, data from the Demonstrative uestionnaire does not support acces-sibility analyses at all, and conversational data supports them only in very weak form. Accessibil-ity analyses of proximals predict that, in attentionally neutral contexts, proximals can be used for referents that are located anywhere in space, provided that they are visible and relatively visually salient. As such, they radically overpredict the use of proximals in the Demonstrative uestion-naire. They also predict that demonstratives other than proximals will be used to establish joint attention on new referents, while proximals will be used for referents that are already in joint attention (given that attention is a component of accessibility, Piwek et al. 2008:703). The conver-sational data shows that the opposite is true in Ticuna. Speaker-proximal demonstratives draw joint attention, including to referents outside the peripersonal space, while addressee-proximal and non-proximal demonstratives are attentionally neutral. While this pattern does support a role for attentional factors (in addition to spatial and perceptual ones) in demonstrative use, it does not conform to accessibility theorists' analysis of proximal demonstratives in other languages, and it does not justify assigning an exclusively attentional semantics to the speaker-proximals.

5.5.2.2 Basis of the attention-drawing use of proximals

Compared to other research on proximal demonstratives, the data presented in this chapter sup-ports a more spatial and less psychological analysis of the items. While other research has documented a wide range of uses of speaker-proximal demonstratives for referents outside the speaker's peripersonal space, the Ticuna conversational corpus shows that uses of proximals for referents outside the origo's peripersonal space are extremely restricted. They fall into only three categories: (a) uses of the speaker-proximal to draw joint attention to a new referent; (b) uses of both proximals to index the origo's motion goal; and (c) uses of the addressee-proximal to index referents that are owned by or under the control of the addressee (all tokens in this last category also involve drawing joint attention to a new referent, and all but one also involve motion). I pro-pose that all three of these 'extended' uses of proximals arise from the spatial-perceptual deictic content of the items.

In arguing that the extended uses of proximals are due to the items' spatial semantics, I be-gin with uses of the speaker-proximal demonstrative to draw joint attention to new referents located outside the speaker's peripersonal space. Similar uses of proximals are attested in many languages, but are typically analyzed as licensed by pointing gestures rather than by attentional factors. Levinson (2018a:32), for example, writes that when the speaker is pointing, the Tzeltal proximal can be used for referents located 'right up to the horizon.'

It is true in the Ticuna conversational data that all uses of speaker-proximal demonstratives for referents beyond peripersonal space involve pointing. However, pointing is unsatisfying as an explanation for this use, since virtually all tokens of exophoric demonstratives in conversation involve deictic gesture. Therefore, I suggest that it is primarily the act of drawing joint attention to a new referent, and only secondarily the use of pointing gestures, that motivates the use of speaker-proximals for referents beyond the speaker's peripersonal space. When the speaker pro-duces a speaker-proximal demonstrative, they direct the addressee to look at them (in order to search their peripersonal space for possible referents). If the addressee uptakes the demonstrative

and looks at the speaker, then there are two possible outcomes: either (a) the addressee perceives the demonstrative referent within the speaker's peripersonal space, or (b) the addressee perceives that the speaker is pointing, and therefore shi s their search space for the referent away from the speaker's peripersonal space, and to the space targeted by the point. Because pointing gestures are spatially precise -- delimiting a relatively small search space -- directing attention to a point-ing gesture in this way is an e ective technique for establishpoint-ing joint attention on the gesture's target.

Under this analysis, the use of proximals to draw joint attention to new referents does not re ect that proximals have an unbounded spatial extension in conjunction with pointing. It re-ects that proximals, precisely because of their speaker-anchored spatial deictic content, are an e ective tool for directing the addressee's attention to the speaker's body, and therefore to the targets of the speaker's pointing gestures. Put another way, when the speaker uses a proximal to draw attention to a distant referent, they are engaged in a form of deferred reference. The spatial deictic value of the proximal directs attention to one referent -- the speaker's pointing gesture, made with a part of their body -- in order to index another, the target of the pointing gesture.

This is no di erent from the more prototypical cases of deferred reference discussed in Chapter 4, where the speaker directs attention to one referent (located beyond their body) in order to index another.

Similar to this analysis of the attention-drawing use of proximals, analyses in terms of deictic transposition are available for the motion- and ownership-licensed uses of the proximals for ref-erents beyond the origo's peripersonal space. In the use of the speaker- and addressee-proximals for motion goals, the origo's location at the moment of speech is transposed with their future location at the end of the motion path. Since the referent will be within the origo's peripersonal space at the end of the motion path, proximal demonstratives become acceptable in reference to it under the transposition. Likewise, most ownership-licensed uses of the addressee-proximal involve the speaker transferring the referent to the addressee. The referent's location at the mo-ment of speech is transposed with its future location at the end of the transfer event. Since it will be within the addressee's peripersonal space at the end of the transfer, the addressee-proximal becomes acceptable in reference to it.³

Insofar as deferred reference and deictic transposition are general to all forms of verbal and nonverbal deixis, these analyses make the testable prediction that the same phenomena I have de-scribed in this chapter -- the use of speaker-proximals to draw joint attention to new referents, the use of proximals for either origo's motion goal, the use of addressee-proximals for referents being transferred to the addressee -- will be present in any language that has speaker- and addressee-proximal demonstratives. To the extent that previous studies have tested these predictions, they appear to be true. For example, experimental research by Coventry et al. (2014) found that English speakers are more likely to use this than that to index referents which they own, and Levinson (2018a:32-33) reports that pointing 'extends the [speaker-]proximal zone' (a pattern which I would

3This analysis is speci c to tokens of the ownership-oriented use that involve transfer of the referent. It does not account for tokens that involve a referent already under the control of the addressee, since it is unclear to me whether such presupposing uses are productive.

interpret as re ecting an association between speaker-proximals and attention-calling deixis) in Sáliba (Margetts 2018) and Tiriyó (Meira 2018) in addition to Tzeltal.

My analysis of the extended uses of the speaker- and addressee-proximals as arising from spatial deictic content, transformed by deferred reference and deictic transposition, also has the advantage of parsimony. Independent of the extended uses, we must assign the proximals spa-tial deictic content in order to account for their core uses (to index referents within the origo's peripersonal space) in the Demonstrative uestionnaire and conversational data. Likewise, in-dependent of any data about the proximals, we must posit that deferred reference and deictic transposition exist in Ticuna in order to account for anomalous uses of visible demonstratives for invisible referents (§4.2.2, §4.4). As such, all parts of the deferred reference/transposition analysis of the extended uses are independently necessary. The alternative to the deferred ref-erence/transposition analysis is to claim that each of the extended uses of the proximals re ects sui generis deictic content. Under this maximalist style of analysis, we will be obliged either to describe the deictic content of each proximal as including a large number of disjunctive fea-tures, or to claim that each proximal represents several homophonous lexical items. Both of these alternative analyses have no motivation outside of the extended uses, while the deferred reference/transposition analysis has independent motivations from the visibility data.

5.5.2.3 Looking ahead

In this chapter, I have argued for a egocentric/altercentric, corporeal semantics for the speaker-and addressee-proximal demonstratives. Using data elicited in the Demonstrative uestionnaire in tandem with conversational data, I showed that in attentionally neutral contexts, Ticuna's two sets of proximal demonstratives -- the speaker-proximal 1 ɲa⁴a² and 1 nu⁵a², and the addressee-proximal 5 ŋe³ma² and 5 ŋe⁵ma² -- speci cally index referents within the reaching space of the speaker ( / 1) or addressee ( / 5). Uses of the proximals to index referents beyond the participants' peripersonal space exist in the conversational corpus, but are restricted to a small set of contexts: drawing joint attention to a discourse-new referent, indexing the origo participant's motion goal, or indexing referents which the origo participant owns or has under their control. I argued that these uses all re ect acts of deferred reference or deictic transposition. They do not provide evidence against a basically spatial-perceptual seman-tics for the proximals. Rather, it is the spatial-perceptual content of the proximals -- for example, the association of the speaker-proximal with the speaker's peripersonal space -- that makes the spatially atypical extended uses possible.

In the following chapter, I turn to the two non-proximal demonstratives of the language:

/ 2 ŋe³a²/ŋe⁵a², which would be labeled as 'medial' in traditional analyses, and / 3 ɟe³a²/ɟe⁵a², which would be labeled as 'distal.' There, I argue -- in line with speakers' intuitions -- that / 3 is essentially an antonym of / 1. It is egocentric and conveys only that the referent is outside the speaker's peripersonal space. / 2, on the other hand, will puncture the sheerly egocentric/altercentric, spatial analysis proposed so far. Its origo is so-ciocentric, and its deictic content is not simply about location inside peripersonal space. Rather,

it conveys that the referent is within an interactionally emergent space de ned jointly by the locations of speaker and addressee.

Chapter 6