I.

On an Attempt to Define Discourse Deixis

1. Deixis’ Definition:
 How can we define Deixis?

Deixis is described as the phenomenon in which the dependency of discourse on the

situation is the most striking. The word “deixis” comes from the ancient Greek language
meaning “to show” or “to indicate”. Deixis expressions, called also “diectics”, denote those
elements in the language which refer directly to the discourse situation. Diectic words are
words with a referent point that is speaker /writer - dependent and is determined by the
speaker or the writer’s position in space and time. Linguists have distinguished between five
categories of Deixis which are person, place, time, social and discourse deixis. Since all the
other categories have been dealt with before, we would focus on the study of Discourse
Deixis.
Consider the following example:
Example 1: I am now standing on the roof.
Analysis: The word “I” refers to the person uttering the sentence: the speaker. The adverb of
time “now” encodes the moment at which the statement is uttered. Finally, the word “roof” is
not of great importance in the analysis of deictic terms, rather it holds a symbolic meaning
since its meaning remains constant and independent in different situations. Diectic terms are
discourse dependent: their meaning change according to the utterance’s context. They are
described as dynamic terms.
2. BÜhler’s Organon Model and Deixis:
 Does Buhler’s Organon Model help in defining the concept of Deixis?

The research of deixis was inspired by Karl Buhler (1934-1990) who developed the
Organon Model. He distinguished between two fields of language: the deictic field (das
Zeigfeld) and the symbolic field (das Symbolfeld). For Buhler, the words of the deictic field
can be compared to signs that direct the reader or the addresser to a better understanding of
the speaker’s utterance. Consequently, he distinguishes between person, place and time deixis
in contrast to mental or phantasmatic deixis (this latter can be seen in novels in which the first
person narrator does not refer necessarily to the author). As mentioned earlier, the symbolic
words are characterized by their independence toward the discourse context. Words such as
“roof” (cf. Example 1) have a steady/ constant meaning; that is their meaning does not
change or transform according to the context. Symbolic words are not deictic words.

3. Deictic Expressions’ Contribution

 What is Deictic words’ contribution?

It is worth mentioning that deictic terms contribute significantly to the meaning and
the interpretation of a text. It accounts on the strengthening of the relationship between
Discourse and Context: i.e. it helps to construct a text in a coherent and cohesive way.

4. Cohesion
 What is Cohesion? What are the cohesive devices used to reach meaningful
interpretation?

Cohesion is the most salient phenomenon of discourse. It deals with the way the
sentences or the utterances are linked together. Cohesion has been defined as the connections
that have their manifestation in the discourse. There are many types of cohesion; among
them: substitution, ellipsis, references, conjunctions and lexical cohesion (Hassan &
Hallyday, 1976 as cited in Renkema). The main difference is between substitution and ellipsis
on one hand and references on the other hand. Substitution and Ellipsis are cohesive devices
that deal with the syntactic relationship between grammatical units (such as words, sentence
parts, clauses), whereas References deals with a semantic relationship. In the case of
reference, the meaning of a pronoun or a dummy word (pleonastic) can be determined by
what imparted before or after the occurrence of this dummy word.

Consider the following example:

Example 2: She certainly changed. No, behind John, I mean Anna.

5. Referential Cohesion and Discourse Deixis

 How can we define Referential Cohesion? Does it account for defining Discourse
Deixis category?

Referential cohesion results from the use of pronouns. In the following sentences, the
behaviour of the pronouns should be studied.

Example 3: John said that he was not going to school

Example 4: When he came in, John found Mary watching TV.

In Example 3, the third person pronoun “he” refers back to John; i.e., “he” is anaphoric,
whereas in Example 4, “he” is a forward referential pronoun: “he” cataphoric. The “he”,
whether anaphoric or cataphoric is considered as a deictic word, belonging to the discourse
deixis category of deictic words.

Anaphoric relations are not only found when personal pronouns are used. See this
example:

Example 5: If John is not going to school, I won’t do either.

The operator “do” refers back to the fact that John is not going to school. However, this would
act as an ellipsis rather than a referential cohesion.

Two types of referential cohesion are distinguished: Anaphora and Cataphora. Anaphora is
the use of an expression to refer to the same entity which is referred to by another expression
in the text, while cataphora refers forward to the entity which is going to be introduced in
the following sequence of the utterance. If we consider anaphora and cataphora as cohesive
devices, we can assert that discourse deixis and cohesive devices are interrelated as it has
been seen in the previous examples. However, many linguists such as Lyons and Levinson
claimed that Discourse Deixis and Anaphora are two discrete phenomena. This, will be
covered in depth in the second part.

6. Coherence
 Since deictic terms contribute to the meaning and the interpretation of a text
through cohesive devices, can we consider reaching meaningful discourse
through Coherence? What is Coherence? What is the difference between
Coherence and Cohesion? Are they interrelated?

“If propositions are the building blocks of discourse, then discourse relations are the
cement between the blocks” (cited in Renkema’s book Discourse Studies, p.145). Coherence
is what makes a text semantically meaningful. Coherence is achieved through syntactical
features such as the use of deictic, anaphoric and cataphoric element or a logical tense
structure such as presuppositions, inferences or implicatures connected to general world
knowledge, whereas cohesive devices are purely linguistic elements which contribute in
making the text coherent. Coherence is of the realm of meaning and logical connections
between sentences. Coherence cannot be achieved without cohesive devices and strong
background knowledge shared between the speaker and the hearer or the writer and the
reader.
 Discourse relationships can be grouped or classified according specific characteristics
which they share along a semantic-pragmatic dimension. Semantic relationship connect
segments on the basis of the proposition content (the locution) linking the situation which is
referred to in the proposition. On the other hand, pragmatic relationship connects segments
of sentences based on their meaning (illocutions). Two others relationships are considered as
pragmatic ones: the rhetorical and the epistemic relationships (Sweetser, 1990). More
generally, coherence devices are defined in terms of additive relationships (“and”
conjunction; “but” contrast; “or” disjunction…) and causal relationships (cause, reason,
means, consequence, purpose, condition and concession).

7. Staging, Perspectivation, Given-New Management, Presuppositions

and Inferences.
 What are the other linguistic phenomena, other than Deixis, that help to reach
the meaning and the interpretation of discourse? Which of these concepts is
considered as the most effective?

Apart Deixis, five other linguistic concepts emerged: staging, perspectivization,

given-new management, presupposition and inferences. They may account on the
strengthening of the relationship between discourse and context, but Deixis is considered
as the most salient concept among them.

Staging deals with the way words in discourse follow each others in a linear fashion.
The information is presented in line with the importance it is supposed to have in a given
context. The information is presented in such a way that some elements will be on the
foreground.

Perspectivization defines different points of view through which the information is

presented. Vision, focalization and empathy are important to take into consideration.
Empathy, for example, is one way to have an insight into the speaker’s attitude toward the
object or the person which is part of an event or a condition described in a sentence. This
concept resembles in a certain manner to Deixis since both of them are described as
egocentric. Kuno (1987) conducted some research concerning empathy in syntactical
structures of a sentence: as shown in this example:

Eg 6: a. John hit Mary.

b. John hit his wife.
c. Mary’s husband hit her.
Based on Kuno’s theoretical claims, the empathy in sentences a. and b. is directed toward
John since he is the doer of the action. The empathy is closer to the referent which argument
is the most expressed. In c., the sentence is characterized by the use of a possessive noun
phrase “Mary’s husband”; in this case this empathy will be closer to the referent of the
possessive.
Given-New Management highlights the clues to make the text more cohesive and
coherent. Unfortunately, the given-new management is a loose concept for the reaching of
text’s good interpretation because the new information cannot be ascertained from the
previous discourse. It is not anaphoric. However, it does take into consideration the “old” or
“given” information which is the knowledge the speaker assumes to be in the consciousness
of the addressee at the time of utterance.
Presupposition and inferences are collective terms for all possible information which
can be derived from discourse. Presupposition and inferences are presented implicitly.
In a nutshell, these linguistic concepts are assumed to help into the identification of the
most relevant pieces of discourse to reach the perfect understanding of an utterance. Deixis
remains the most powerful linguistic instance which contributes in the encoding of
discourse deictic expressions.

II. Discourse Deixis

1. Discourse Deixis’ Definition

 What is Discourse Deixis?

Levinson (1983) defines discourse deixis as the use of expressions within an utterance
to refer to some parts of the discourse which contains this utterance. Discourse Deixis is
deixis in the text. This category of deixis encompasses all the others since it is expressed in
terms of expression of time and space. Discourse Deixis is perceived as a reference through
an expression which is interpreted according to the context in which it is used. The context
involves the person who is speaking, the time, the place of utterance, physical pointing,
and the topic of the discourse. It is worth reminding that all the deictic expressions are able
to situate the relationship between the speaker and the hearer and their relation with the
World.

Common discourse deictic expressions are: next week, last week, in the next chapter, in
the last paragraph, but, therefore, in conclusion, to the contrary… All these words make
reference to a statement sentence. They can only be interpreted as discourse diectics
according to the context of the sentence: they are context dependent.
The frequency of deictic terms varies across types of text; the more formal the
discourse is, the more markers are needed to keep coherence in the text. It is often found in
some scientific reports: “X is given in Appendix A” which directs the reader’s attention to
another part of the text (the genuine role of Deixis).
2. Discourse Deixis Manifestation

 How is discourse deixis expressed?

A text, whether written or oral, is related to the concepts of space and time. These two
concepts of time and space are prominent for the realization of discourse deixis. Consider the
following examples:

Example 7: There is a nice point to discuss in class.

Example 8: Here is a powerful argument.
Example 9: In the last section, we considered place deixis.
Example 10: In the next chapter, more will be said about space.
Analysis: All these four examples contain the notion of space and time: “here”, “there”, “in
the last section” and “in the next chapter”. Although they are spatial or temporal deictic terms,
they are used to express discourse deixis. Usually, the “there”-“here”/ “this”- “that”
dichotomy is used for encoding proximal-distal distinction in space deixis, but in these
sentences they are more tied to the temporal dimension of the discourse. In Example 7, this
comment is made in reference to a point which is already made; in Example 8, the argument
is about to follow the statement: it acts as the introduction of the argument itself. In these two
sentences, the temporal dimension of discourse is more important than the spatial one, even
though the terms are spatial. They represent oral discourse which is conditioned by the fact
that oral delivery should occur in real time.
In Example 9 and 10, the text occur in the written form: the terms “last” and “next” which are
typically used in time deixis expressions such as “last month” or “next day” are in these
examples used to express the spatial relation between the currents parts, with parts of text
placed before or after this point.
Discourse deixis is expressed by the use of temporal and spatial terms; this is a step forward
for the explanation of the experiential approach to deixis.
3. Anaphora and Discourse Deixis
  How can we differentiate between Anaphora as discourse cohesive device and
Discourse Deixis?
These two devices help for the understanding and the meaningful interpretation of a
piece of discourse. However, Lyons (1977:667) differentiates between them. The following
examples try to illustrate the distinction between Anaphora and Discourse Deixis.
Example 11: John is a smart student; he graduated with an honor degree from university.
In this sentence, “he” refers back to John. “he” is anaphoric and not deictic.
Sometimes it can be both deictic and anaphoric:
Example 12: I was born in Lebanon and I have lived there all my life.
In this sentence, “there” refers back to “Lebanon” which is a place deixis. It functions as an
anaphora when referring to “Lebanon” and deictically in the choice whether “there” indicates
that the speaker is located or not in Lebanon.
Discourse deixis occurs when an expression within an utterance refers to another linguistic
expression in the same utterance.
Example13: I know what a chiropractor is, but can you spell it for me, please?
In this sentence, the personal pronoun “it” does not refer to the entity “chiropractor” but rather
to its occurrence of this word in this text. The pronoun “it” establishes a relation between two
utterances and the part occupied by “chiropractor”.
Anaphora takes place when an expression within an utterance refers to the same linguistic
utterance (cf. Eg 11).

III. The Experiential Approach to Deixis

1. Analysis of Deictic Expressions

 What is it required for the analysis of deictic expressions?

When analyzing a deictic expression we need to take into consideration the speaker,
his location and the time he produces the utterance (the coding time) on one hand and on
the other hand, the addressee, his location and the time he receives the utterance (the
receiving time). A third person should be taken into consideration, who is the hearer; he may
or may not agree with the addressee. Apart from the speaker, addressee and hearer, the deictic
centre is important for the analysis and the understanding of deictic expressions.
2. The Deictic Centre
 What is the Deictic Centre?
 It is an imaginary point which the meaning and the interpretation of a deictic
expression are attached to. Notwithstanding that deictic expressions are egocentric (speaker
+ his time + his place of the utterance + his social factors), diectic expressions can be used in
a way that the Deictic Centre (DC) changes from one person to another. For instance, if I
read a story to my little brother: “she then drove 20 km to the left”. The deictic centre (DC) is
“she” and not “me” and thus the deictic expression “to the left” does not refer to my left but to
the left of the person being spoken of in the story. Deictic expressions are tied to the speaker-
hearer context and the most important difference is being near the speaker or away from him
(distal-proximal).
3. The Emergence of the Experiential Approach
 What are the underpinnings of the experiential approach to deixis?
The experiential approach to deixis emerges because linguists used to differentiate
between person and social deixis, while in the meantime they constitute two aspects of the
same phenomenon. One cannot be dealt with without addressing the other. These two
concepts should be regarded as one unique conceptualization of reality. Another problem is
responsible for the emergence of this approach is that discourse deixis and time /space
deixis are stongly interrelated, therefore, the experiential approach advocates the mapping
across domains. The last problem, but not the least is that the rigid classification of deictic
terms and usages is problematic for the analysis of data since there is no consideration of
the non deictic use of deictic terms and the deictic uses of non deictic terms (there are no
possible variations).
Deixis should be conceptualized as an Idealized Cognitive Model (ICM) which
structures a mental space and is responsible for the prototypical structure of this category.
This would help to have a deep insight into the understanding of deictic terms and uses.
4. The ICM
 What is the ICM model responsible for?
The ICM gives rise to the image of CENTRE vs. PERIPHERY and explains the
difference between the gestural, the symbolic use of deictic. In this manner, Person and
Place mutually evolve; the Social deixis is based on the metaphorical understanding of social
place and physical space; the Time deixis is the metaphorical understanding of time as space
and Discourse deixis is the metaphorical understanding of discourse as time and time as
space.
5. Levinson’s Model
  How can we conceptualize the Levinson’s model of Deixis?
For Levinson (1983), the spatial category encompasses the others. He describes the
deictic centre as being surrounded by a four dimension space. This space is conceptualized
by means of four concentric circles: three of them represent the space dimension, and the
fourth one is the time circle. The three circles of space refer to the different zones of space
proximity through the speaker passes a time line on which the events prior to his present
utterance are arranged linearly. That is, when the speaker speaks, he acts at different zones of
space proximity and all what he is saying is arranged according to a linear fashion. In the
Levinson’s model, another circle can be added: that of the social rank in which the speaker is
socially higher, lower or equal to the addressee and the other persons that might be referred
to.
6. ICM’s Conceptualization
 What is the image schematic structure of the ICM?
When studying the image schematic structure of the ICM, the notions of CENTRE vs.
PERIPHERY should not be overlooked; for Lakoff (1987:274), the Centre is superior to the
periphery since the centre defines the identity of the individual while periphery do not.
Johnson (1987:125) would draw upon the dichotomy CENTRE vs. PERIPHERY another
schema: the NEAR-FAR schema. Again, the notion of space in Lakoff & Johnson’s model is
emphasized. According to them, the speaker is seen spatially and when discussing the space
as the deictic centre, we refer to him spatially; therefore the speaker is spatially
constructed.
7. The Deictic ICM
 How is the Deictic ICM constructed?
The Deictic ICM is constructed through metaphorical mappings. The metaphorical
mappings allow the understanding the characteristics of a speech event in terms of physical
space. Two domains are distinguished: the physical and the abstract domain; the abstract
domain is understood in terms of the concrete one (the source domain).
8. Deictic ICM’s Analysis of Deixis Categories
 How does the ICM diectic analyse the different deixis categories?
The analysis of social deixis requires the spatial domain in order to understand
reality, as well as time deixis which is understood as place deixis in terms of the linear
order image schema and time metaphors. Time and Social deixis are moving in space
(they are abstract) and they can only be comprehended in terms of a concrete domain: the
spatial domain.
The analysis of discourse deixis follows to some extent the same steps: In the PART-
WHOLE schema (cited in Maramaridou, Lakoff, 1987:277), the whole exists only if all parts
exist in the configuration. If the whole is at place X, then the other place are at this place. The
parts should complete each others. Discourse deixis, like social and time deixis are
accounted to in terms of spatial entity. (The speaker moves to one part of the discourse or
one part of the discourse moves in relation to the speaker). In I shall now move to the next
point, the speaker is moving from one part of the whole to the next.