The use of demonstratives was investigated in two different types of Dutch spoken dialogues. The first type of dialogue was same place, same time, the second type was different place, same time (telephone conversation). In the second type no difference between proximal and distal use was measured with respect to the distribution of distances to the reference .

1. Proximal and Distal demonstratives in Dutch spoken dialogues Robbert-Jan Beun and Paul Piwek 1

2. Denk: Basic Model Domain Physical interaction Agent 2 Agent 1 Symbolic interaction Computer system User 2

3. Search spaces in DENK private beliefs Computer ‘Referring expression’ shared beliefs User: goals discourse pending 3

4. Search Space for referents Driven by ‘accessibility markers’ def articles, demonstratives, pronouns, … A: blablablablablabla The driver drinks. The policeman observes him/himself. cognitive state (beliefs, goals, …) 4

5. Priority Space for referents A:Is this block heavy? B:Yes A1:Remove it/?that/?this! A2:Remove that/?this one! A3:Remove the/that/?this block! 5

6. Would we be able to refine the rules that guide the search and the generation process for demonstrative noun phrases, in particular the difference between proximals and distals? 6

7. DemonstrativesTraditional viewpoints Demonstratives indicate relative distance of a referent in the speech situation Deictic center (origo): usually the speaker Reference to nearby-faraway distance: proximal: ‘dit/deze’ (‘this/these’) distal: ‘dat/die’ (‘that/those’) faraway 54% of the languages express a two-way contrast Distance- and person-oriented systems Anaphoric use is derived from situational use 7

10. three-way (or more) contrast languages

11. many other uses:

12. This block is smaller than that block

13. non-situational use? Essential difference between perceptual representations and abstract linguistic notions, however … 8

14. Other proposals Based on notions such as: importance, focus, given/new, background/foreground, force to seek the antecedent, intensity of indicating, accessibility, prominence, distance, (degree of) attention, familiarity, shared knowledge, contrast, presupposed vs. predicted, ... Hard to quantify! 9

15. Let’s take an example 10

17. If accessibility is low, then give more force If importance is high, then give more force Applied to demonstratives (Kirsner, 1979) proximals  strong indicating distals  neutral indicating 12 Intensity of indicating

18. Findings by kirsner (1979) Accessibility proximals used over longer distances  proximals are related with low accessibility Importance proximals more often used: to refer to humans, (named) individuals to refer to individual referents (as opposed to plural) in subject position  proximals are related with high importance 13

20. Nr. of words: ~5000 Domain of discourse: blocks world Channel: spoken Goal: make building like example Builder: B, Instructor: I 14

21. Basic setting Domain Agent 2 Agent 1 15

22. Example (original in dutch) I: Well J. B: Yes I: Let’s see …uh, do you have a red square? B: Yes I: Well, for a start, you have to … put that on the horizontal … beam v- uh, the bleu one, two by six B: yes I: in the front B: over here? I: yes, a little more to the front side B: like this? I: yes, like that, that is the first change, and then, uh, let’s see, what is the old one … (2.0) yes, then you have to put that block, in the middle, that one with yellow, that one has to be removed B: this? I: take it away 16

23. hypothesis The use of a proximal vs. distal is related to the intensity of indicating: If accessibility is low  use proximal If importance is high  use proximal Else  use distal 17

24. results Accessibility and importance in terms of focus of attention and task at hand (manipulation) If low accessibility then proximal  yes (χ²=6.76, p<0.01) If high importance then proximal  no significant result 18

25. SOME remarks We investigated only situational reference i.e. first reference to physical objects Proximals were always (except one) accompanied by pointing Operational criteria of accessibility and importance are disputable (also in Kirsner’s proposal) 19

26. So, … Intuitively a proximal refers to nearby, more accessible information, but … Observations showed that proximals refer to less accessible information reference over longer distances (Kirsner) reference to objects that were not directly in the focus of the speaker’s attention (Piwek, et al) 20

27. Corpus 2 Dutch dialogue Domain of discourse: computer, telephone, internet Channel: spoken, phone Goal: solving problems with computer Client: C, Helpdesk agent: A Nr. of words: ~30000 21

28. Example (original in dutch) A: I understand from a colleague that you have a problem with your phone C: yes, I am now on the phone for almost one hour and I want … A: hmmh C: and I am phoning that oneon the phone, a P. or a P. … A: hmmh C: from the helpdesk, that onewas helping me, I had to reset … that is what I did, and then, the phone, well, it disappeared, the signal,… A: ok C: then I tried again, but couldn’t get him, I phoned several times … A: yes C: and that didn’t work and now, I did, uhh, well, uhh … A: ok, so you are phoning with a mobile phone now? C: yes, … 22

29. Basic setting Domain 2 Domain 1 Agent 2 Agent 1 23

30. SOMe numbers a demonstrative every 13 seconds 24

31. Reference type % of occurrence 25

32. Exophoric (new) 7.84 K: Ik kan even geen ‘servers’ vinden, eh … , dan moet ik even dit aanklikken K: I cannot find ‘servers’, uh … , then I have to click this. 10.108 K:Dus, sluiten met die x in de rechterbovenhoek? K: So, closing with that x in the upper right corner? 26

33. Associative anaphor (new) 1.36 A:Telefoneren is wel goedkoop, maar ik telefoneer zo dikwijls dat ik dat weer kwijt ben aan mijn mobiele telefoon. A: Phoning may be cheap, but I am phoning so often that I am loosing that with my mobile phone. 4.17 A:U zult merken dat uw verbinding weer werkt als dat rode lampje uitgaat. A: You will notice that your connection works again if that red light is off. 27

34. Distance to antecedent 28

35. Distance to antecedent Difference of means is not significant! 29

36. distribution of Distance (‘new’ excluded from counting) 30

37. distribution of Distance 31 % of occurrence

38. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference 32

39. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference But how then could we measure a difference in accessibility in the first corpus? 33

40. No difference in distance distribution between proximal and distal reference But how then could we measure a difference in accessibility in the first corpus? Because people pointed to important and faraway objects. Pointing brings the object in focus and therefore nearby  use a proximal Distinguish between the act of reference and the act of focusing. 34

42. But suppose proximals are more near or in focus, then why didn’t we measure a difference in the distance distribution? 36

43. Substructures in discourse 6.15 K: I want to remove my email address 6.19 A: You cannot remove this email address 6.20 K: That is a problem 6.29 A: Do you use this email address? 37 substructure substructure

45. interruptions

46. rhetorical structures

47. sub-questions

48. …38 K: Do x K: Yes, but then … . A: Well, … … Blablathis xblabla

49. Pronominal vs. adnominal % of occurrence χ²= 20.1, p<.001 39

50. If proximal would be near, focus or easy accessible, then we would expect less description. What happens? 40

51. Distal, distance and form % 0-3/4-10: χ²=50.3, p<.001 4-10/>10: χ²=3.82, p≤.05 41

52. proximal, distance and form % 0-3/>4: χ²=2.48, p>.05 42

54. conclusion The traditional classification of near and faraway could be restored We found no difference in distance (distribution) between proximal and distal use in number of turns Distance in turns or words is not (always) an adequate measure for accessibility or nearness degree of focus in perceivable world (situation) related to structure in discourse (domain model, task) A clear distinction should be made between the act of bringing an object into focus and the act of reference Conversational setting should be described very carefully 44