Questionnaire based on the work of Krasnoukhova (2012).
Authors: David Inman, Marine Vuillermet
Acknowledgements: Natalia Chousou-Polydouri, Kellen Parker van Dam, Anna Graff, Nora Muheim, Diana Krasovskaya
Demonstratives are function words “used to focus the interlocutors' attention on referents or locations in the surrounding speech situation by way of pointing” (Diessel 2014: 121). They may occur in as many as four distinct syntactic functions, of which the present questionnaire only considers the adnominal and pronominal ones, as in I saw this dog and I saw this one. Adverbial demonstratives – words like English here and there – are not addressed in this survey, which focuses on the nominal realm, unless they are the only way to notionally modify the noun (see the examples under Dem-001 below). Identificational demonstratives as in This is a dog are not addressed either.
Demonstratives differ from determiners in that they are prototypically deictic – they specify the nominal’s position in the speech situation, rather than provide givenness information (i.e., the and a in English are not deictic demonstratives, but this and that are). Across languages, the adnominal and pronominal demonstrative functions may be encoded with the same form, slightly different ones, or more rarely distinct ones, including syntactic periphrases. Semantically, demonstratives tend to primarily encode distance, but other semantic parameters like visibility, position, movement and altitude may also be present.
Formally, adnominal demonstratives can be realized as free or bound words. In several languages, demonstratives might require other (inflectional or derivational) morphemes like classifiers, gender or directionals. If the additional morphology is obligatory, then we consider that the associated semantics is part of the demonstrative system. For instance, the Itonama [iton1250] (isolate; Bolivia) demonstrative roots encode distance, and an obligatory classifier encodes posture (1, 2).
| (1) | ya-dïlï | u-buwa |
|---|---|---|
| DEM:MED-CLF:standing.PL | EV-person1 | |
| ‘standing people’ (Crevels 2012: 252) | ||
| (2) | n'oo-so | opi |
|---|---|---|
| DEM:PROX-CLF:lying.PL | fish | |
| ‘lying fish’ (Crevels 2012: 252) | ||
Some linguistic areas have been claimed to be defined by the properties of their deictic demonstratives. This includes the number of encoded distances (three to four in Mesoamerica, Gnerre 2015: 650; three in parts of the Pacific Northwest Beck 2000 passim), a visible/invisible distinction (the Pacific Northwest, Thompson and Kinkade 1990:47), and overall semantic richness and complexity, including features such as movement and posture (the Chaco region of South America, cf. Campbell and Grondona 2012: 284-285, Krasnoukhova 2012: 264). Posture semantics (as documented in Krasnoukhova 2012: 235-239) may be a South American feature, but this hypothesis has not been tested outside of the continent.
Diessel (2013) finds a strong global tendency for 2-3 levels of distance distinctions in demonstratives, but smaller values (1 distance distinction) and much larger values (4 or more distances) are more restricted in their distribution.
For the purposes of detecting areal signal, if one is to be found, we have focused on the demonstrative paradigm which is used to (notionally) modify noun phrases. In the case where a language does not have demonstratives which syntactically modify nouns, we code for the paradigm which fulfills the same pragmatic or notional role, and we have kept track of cases in which nominal and pronominal demonstratives semantically differ (see the preliminary features). Once the appropriate demonstrative paradigm is identified, we have encoded for the number of distance contrasts, the presence of a visibility distinction, posture semantics, motion, and altitude.
Some of the data used for this feature set was extracted from the work of Krasnoukhova (2012), who performed a similar typologization for languages in South America. This information was taken from the Noun Phrase domain of the SAILS database (Krasnoukhova 2016). In the few cases where we reached a different conclusion from Krasnoukhova after a review of the sources, this has been noted with the remark “contra SAILS”.
The features in this feature set are categorized into preliminary, main, and derived ones. The role of the preliminary features is to establish which demonstrative paradigm has been coded for the main features, and if the language has adnominal and pronominal paradigms which differ semantically.
{ adnominal | pronominal | adverbial }
This preliminary feature specifies the syntactic properties of the demonstrative system coded for the main features. The main features target the semantic properties of demonstratives that (notionally) modify nouns, but such demonstratives may in fact cover a variety of quite different syntactic functions. There are three high-level syntactic functions that such a system can fulfill:
Though the majority of languages2 use a single paradigm for at least the adnominal and pronominal functions (as is seen in the in-line English examples above), all three functions are distinct and may be expressed with different demonstrative paradigms.
Not all three syntactic functions are necessary. For example, Cavineña [cavi1250] (Pano-Tacanan; Bolivia) has pronominal and adverbial paradigms, but no dedicated adnominal paradigm. To express the adnominal function, the adverbial system (i.e. ‘here’, ‘there’) is used in a relative clause or in apposition, as in ‘I see the dog that is there’ and ‘I see the dog, there’ (Guillaume 2008: 622). Other languages, like Hixkaryana [hixk1239] (Cariban; Brazil), also have no dedicated adnominal paradigm, but use their pronominal paradigm appositionally to situate nouns. It can be shown that the pronominal deictics in Hixkaryana are not adnominal and do not form a constituent within a single NP, but rather form two separate NPs in apposition (Derbyshire 1979: 131-132).
This feature is limited by the degree to which the syntactic status of the targeted demonstratives has been thoroughly documented. A pronominal demonstrative used appositionally with a noun (phrase) can indeed easily be mistaken for an adnominal demonstrative. For instance, Vuillermet (2012: 358) has not thoroughly investigated the syntactic status of the adnominal deictic paradigm for Ese Ejja [esee1248] (Pano-Tacanan; Bolivia), although she mentions that the demonstrative and the NP are sometimes far apart from each other. This may indeed suggest an absence of syntactic constituency of the demonstrative and its associated noun, i.e. a lack of the adnominal function and the presence of only a pronominal function. The fact that Ese Ejja’s sister language Cavineña is documented as lacking the adnominal function would be a further argument for such an analysis.
In the case where a language does use a single paradigm for both the adnominal and an(y) other function, as is the case with English this and that, we consider the answer to this question to be “adnominal” (since the paradigm that modifies the noun is in fact adnominal in its syntactic function), and code its unique pronominal properties, if any, in the second preliminary feature, Dem-002, below.
Yanesha’ has three demonstratives: añ (proximal), ñeñt̃ (medial), and t̃arr (distal). These demonstratives may directly modify nouns, as seen for the medial demonstrative in (3) below (glossing not in source).
| (3) | ñeñt̃ | pocoll |
|---|---|---|
| DMED | house | |
| ‘that house’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 53) | ||
Bauni has five adnominal demonstratives (Corris 2006: 146-157) which can be placed after a common noun to modify it, as in (4).
| (4) | bo | rirǐvá | beré, | bo | Rapi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| place | long | DDIST | place | Serra | |
| ‘that faraway place, Serra’ (Corris 2006: 151) | |||||
Hixkaryana has no demonstratives that are used adnominally at all, but uses pronominal demonstratives appositively to achieve the same communicative function (Derbyshire 1979: 131-132). Thus, in sentences like (5), the correct syntactic understanding of the demonstrative is as an appositive noun phrase.
| (5) | Kaywana | y-omsɨ-rɨ | y-ok-nɨ | mokro | kaykusu |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaywana | 3-daughter-POSS | 3-pet-POSS | that.one | dog | |
| ‘That dog is Kaywana’s daughter’s pet.’ (Derbyshire 1979: 68) | |||||
According to Guillaume (2008: 622), “the Cavineña equivalent of English ‘this/that X’ is literally ‘the X who/that is here/there’. [... A] second option is to use a pointing [pronominal] demonstrative in apposition to an NP.” The two strategies are illustrated in (6).
| (6) | a. | [Yume=ke | jipamu] | ji-u=piji. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| over.there=LIG | papaya | good-ASF=DIM | ||
| ‘That papaya (tree) that we see in the distance is very nice.’ (Guillaume 2008: 503) | ||||
| b. | … kakemiti-nuka-ya | [[tume] | [peya | ekwita]=tsewe] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| get.married-REITR-IMPFV | there | other | person=ASSOC | ||
| ‘… she is getting re-married, with that other person there.’ (Guillaume 2008: 622) | |||||
Guillaume’s description of the use of the appositive, pronominal demonstrative as “secondary” and the strict semantic restrictions of the pronominal paradigm (inanimates only) leads us to believe the adverbial demonstratives are the ones primarily fulfilling this role in Cavineña, and so we code it as <adverbial>.
{ NA | yes | no }
If the demonstrative paradigm which notionally modifies the noun is not itself pronominal, it is possible that the language may not have demonstratives in the pronominal function at all. This feature tracks whether any demonstratives are present in the pronominal role, if some other functional syntactic category is used to notionally modify nouns. Recall that the adnominal function and the pronominal function may be fulfilled by the same or different morphological forms.
Though an additional preliminary question targeting the presence of the adverbial function is conceivable, this feature set is focused on the noun phrase (following claims about areality of demonstrative features in the literature), and we have not investigated adverbial deictics, except where they are used to modify nouns.
Because Hixkaryána uses pronominal demonstratives forms in an appositive construction for the adnominal function (see above), it is <NA> to this question.
According to Guillaume (2008: 427-429), Cavineña has “deictic nouns” that are mostly used as pronouns. They form an incomplete paradigm, as they are only available for inanimate entities, as in (7).
| (7) | Tukwana=dya | =ekwana | ara-kware |
|---|---|---|---|
| that.stuff.there=FOC | =1PL.ERG | eat-REM.PST | |
| ‘We ate those things.’ (Guillaume 2008: 428) | |||
Yanesha’ uses the same demonstrative paradigms for both the adnominal and pronominal functions (Duff-Tripp 1997), as can be seen with the medial demonstrative ñeñt̃ in (8) below (compare with 3 above; glossing not in source).
| (8) | ñeñt̃-pa’ | o’ | n-ot-u-ap̃ |
|---|---|---|---|
| DMED-FOC | AUX | 1SG.SUBJ-PFV-2SG.OBJ | |
| ‘I already told you that.’ (Duff-Tripp 1997: 65) | |||
Bauni has only one set of demonstratives, which may only be used adnominally. In order to express the pronominal function, the demonstrative must be combined with the word a ‘thing’ (Corris 2006: 146-147). An example of such a use of the adnominal proximal demonstrative is given in (9) below.
| (9) | … ‘a | bé | n-a-n-á | beka | rô … |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| thing | DPROX | IRR-1SG.M-1SG.M-do | like | where | |
| … ‘How will I do this…’ (Corris 2006: 320) | |||||
{ NA | yes | no }
If a language has demonstratives for both the adnominal and pronominal functions, these paradigms may have different semantic properties, such as a different number of distance distinctions. While the main questionnaire is focused on the paradigm that is notionally used with nouns (regardless of its syntactic function), it is nevertheless relevant to our wider goal of determining areality if demonstratives fulfilling the adnominal and pronominal functions differ semantically. Because semantic differences between adnominal and pronominal deictics were very unusual in our sample, rather than encoding all of the main questions twice, we code only for the adnominal paradigm (unless the language has none) and track cases where there is a difference, giving information about the type of difference in the remarks.
Bauni does not have pronominal demonstratives (see above).
Despite having different paradigms of adverbial demonstratives (which are used to notionally situate nouns) and pronominal demonstratives, the two paradigms have the same semantic properties. All demonstratives distinguish three distances of ‘near’, ‘mid’, and ‘far’ (Guillaume 2008: 80).
The same demonstrative paradigm is used for both the adnominal and pronominal functions in Yanesha’ (see above).
Sandawe has independent series of adnominal and pronominal demonstratives, with different sets of distinctions. The adnominal demonstratives are presented in Table 1 and the pronominal demonstratives are presented in Table 2, which are taken from Eaton (2010: 84, 87).
Table 1: Adnominal demonstratives in Sandawe
| masc | fem | pl animate | pl inanimate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| proximal | nê | nêsù̥ | nêsò nêʔwà |
nêʔwà |
| distal | nâ | nâsù̥ | nâsò nâʔwà |
nâʔwà |
Table 2: Pronominal demonstratives in Sandawe
| masc | fem | pl animate | pl inanimate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| proximal (near hearer and speaker) |
hè́ːù | hè́ːsù̥ | hè́ːsò hè́ːxʷéː |
hè́ːxʷéː |
| referential (near hearer) |
hèwé | hèsú hùsú |
hèsó hèwéxé(ː) |
hèwéxé(ː) |
| distal (far from hearer and speaker) |
hà́ːù hǐ̃ːgò |
hà́ːsù̥ hǐ̃ːsù̥ |
hà́ːsò hà́ːxʷéːhǐ̃ːsò |
hà́ːxʷéː hǐ̃ːsò |
{ 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 9 }
This is the same feature formulated in Diessel (2013) and NP305 in SAILS (Krasnoukhova 2016).
It is important to note that this feature only documents the number of distinctions made, and not other information which may be relevant to that number. For example, languages may differ in the number of deictic centers present in a system: i.e. distance from one deictic center: near (to the speaker) vs far (from the speaker); or distance from two deictic centers: near the speaker vs near the addressee vs far from both.
Although adverbial demonstratives (i.e. ‘here’, ‘there’) have distance distinctions in Mosetén-Chimané, the pronominal/adnominal demonstratives iits (M), öi (F) do not distinguish distance, but only gender (Sakel 2004: 119).
Only two demonstratives are present in Achumawi, namely qabi 'this' and qake 'that’ (Bauman 1980: 26).
K’iche’ has 3 demonstratives: wa’, la’, and ri’ (Pixabaj 2017: 471, Duncan 2010: 92-93). The demonstrative wa’ clearly indicates ‘this’, or something near the speaker. The demonstrative la’ is translated by all sources as ‘that’ and furthermore must be visible or spoken of as if it were visible; ri’ is meanwhile translated also as ‘that’ but is restricted to entities which are not visible, or not visible yet.
Our conclusion from these data is that K’iche’ in fact has two levels of distance: near and far. It has an additional semantic dimension of visibility, which is orthogonal to the distance distinctions. This further dimension of visibility is encoded in Dem-02 below.
Krongo has three levels of distance encoded in its demonstratives, which takes into consideration both distance from hearer and speaker: -óʔóŋ ‘near speaker/hearer’, -íkkí 'not close to speaker; also invisible’, -íitìyíŋ* ‘not close/not far from speaker/hearer’ (Reh 1985: 70).
Northern Yukaghir has 5 demonstratives, 4 of which give relative distances from a single deictic center (from most proximal to most distal: tu(ŋ), adu(ŋ), tie(ŋ), ta(ŋ), and 1 which encodes invisibility (tide(ŋ)) (Maslova 2003: 36).
{ yes | no }
In some languages, demonstratives additionally distinguish evidential or epistemic properties, the most common being between seen (or directly experienced) and unseen (or indirectly experienced) objects. This epistemic/evidential property can be described as a visible/invisible or a present/absent distinction. This feature considers all of these to be typologically similar and categorizes this set of properties as a visible/invisible distinction. This is designed to be compatible with the formulation made in NP306 in SAILS (Krasnoukhova 2016).
K’iche’ has a demonstrative ri’ which is dedicated to invisible entities (Pixabaj 2017: 471, Duncan 2010: 92-93).
Northern Yukaghir has a demonstrative tide(ŋ) which is dedicated to invisible entities (Maslova 2003: 36).
The two demonstratives in Achumawi are qabi 'this' and qake 'that’, which does not specifically encode visibility (Bauman 1980: 26).
Krongo (Reh 1985: 170) distinguishes between the following demonstratives:
We consider that íkkí 'invisible' is a semantic extension of 'far from speaker' and thus do not consider that the demonstrative system of Krongo specifically encodes visibility. Instead, the system appears to be like English, where the demonstrative that would be the natural choice for nouns that are out of view.
{ yes | no }
Examples of posture are properties like lying, standing, sitting, hanging, and so on. For the associated “position in space” property the concept has to be distinct from distance (e.g., “in the air” or “on the water”). This feature is designed to be compatible with the formulation made in NP308 in SAILS (Krasnoukhova 2016).
The demonstrative system in Mekens encodes information both about distance and posture. Some postures encode more distance distinctions than others (Galucio 2001: 43-45). The postures distinguished by Mekens demonstratives are: seated, vertical, lying, and suspended. An example sentence is given in (10).
| (10) | sobekara | õt | peyẽ | kwãẽ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| desire | 1SG | DEM.seated | pan | |
| ‘I want that pan (sitting on X).’ (Galucio 2001: 31) | ||||
Demonstratives in Movima encode a standing/non-standing position for entities on the ground (Haude 2006: 138), as can be seen for the example noun phrase in (11).
| (11) | kore’e=s | wu’tu |
|---|---|---|
| DEM.std.n=DET | pot | |
| ‘that (standing) pot’ (Haude 2006: 180) | ||
Krongo demonstratives encode only distance, and not posture (Reh 1985: 70).
{ yes | no }
In some languages, demonstratives can also encode movement, such as movement toward or away from the speaker, general motion, or passing by something. This feature is designed to be compatible with the formulation made in NP309 in SAILS (Krasnoukhova 2016).
In addition to posture, Movima demonstratives also encode information about motion, namely toward or away from the speaker (Haude 2006: 138), as exemplified for motion away in (12).
| (12) | kulro’ | joychoy | joy-cheɬ | n-as | Peru |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEM.rtr.m | DPROX | go-R/R | obl-ART.n | Perú | |
| ‘He (moving away) is probably going to [the village of] Perú.’ (Haude 2006: 189) | |||||
Krongo demonstratives encode only distance, and not motion (Reh 1985: 70).
{ yes | no }
In some languages, demonstratives can also indicate the altitude of the entity. This feature is strictly concerned with (relative) altitude and not posture such as ‘hang’. This feature is designed to be compatible with the formulation made in NP307 in SAILS (Krasnoukhova 2016).
In addition to distance-based demonstratives, Huallaga Huánuco Quechua also has demonstratives which make a three-way altitude distinction between entities below the speaker (ura), above the speaker (jana), and at the same altitude as the speaker (washa) (Weber 1989: 38).
Movima has a demonstrative called ‘elevated’. However the description of the semantics of the morpheme shows that it rather belongs to the positional demonstratives (as made explicit in Haude 2006: 138). The ‘elevated’ demonstrative is used to refer to entities that have “no contact with the ground,” and not necessarily above or below the altitude of the speaker. It thus fits rather well the posture paradigm frequently found in Amazonia where 'hanging / no contact with the ground' is part of the inventory of the posture verbs. The demonstrative system in Movima thus does not have an altitude dimension.
Krongo demonstratives encode only distance, and not altitude (Reh 1985: 70).
{ yes | no }
| yes | if Dem-01 ≥ 2 |
| no | if Dem-01 = 0 |
{ NA | 2 | more than 2 }
| NA | if Dem-01 = 0 |
| 2 | if Dem-01 = 2 |
| more than 2 | if Dem-01 ≥ 3 |
{ NA | up to 3 | more than 3 }
| NA | if Dem-01 = 0 |
| up to 3 | if Dem-01 ≥ 2 and Dem.01 ≤ 3 |
| more than 3 | if Dem-01 ≥ 4 |
{ NA | up to 4 | more than 4 }
| NA | if Dem-01 = 0 |
| up to 4 | if Dem-01 ≥ 2 and Dem.01 ≤ 4 |
| more than 4 | if Dem-01 ≥ 5 |
The presence of a demonstrative paradigm in the adnominal function is extremely common, and all exceptions in our sample are from South America (Dem-001). Three of the five languages which use a pronominal demonstrative to notionally modify the noun are Cariban languages from the northern Amazon. Only nine languages lack a pronominal demonstrative paradigm altogether (Dem-002), and only three languages express different semantic properties between their adnominal and pronominal demonstratives (Dem-003).
Our results on distance distinctions (Dem-001) align with Diessel’s (2013) finding of a strong tendency for 2-3 levels of distance distinctions in demonstratives (see Table 3). Many of the languages with no distance distinctions are African, while languages with four or more distinctions are fairly dispersed.
| Distance distinctions | Languages | Percent of sample |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 17 | 5% |
| 2 | 149 | 46% |
| 3 | 129 | 40% |
| 4 | 18 | 6% |
| 5+ | 5 | 2% |
Other semantic features are more geographically constrained. Visibility distinctions (Dem-02) noticeably cluster in the Pacific Northwest and Mexico, but are widely dispersed in the Amazon. Distinctions according to position and posture (Dem-03) are rare, but three of our six examples occur in northern Bolivia, and all but one are in South America. Movement distinctions (Dem-04) are also rare, and occur in the two Alaskan Eskimo-Aleut languages of our sample and among three neighboring languages in the Gran Chaco (Wichí Lhamtés Nocten (Matacoan), Nivaclé (Matacoan), and Pilagá (Guaicuran)), as well as in a few other scattered languages. Altitude distinctions (Dem-05) in our American sample occur only in Eskimo-Aleut, Jaqaru (Aymaran) and Huallaga Huánuco Quechua (Quechuan). However, altitude is a much more common feature in Papunesia, where it appears not to be constrained by family.
Conceptualization: David Inman, Marine Vuillermet
Data collection: David Inman, Natalia Chousou-Polydouri, Marine Vuillermet, Anna Graff, Nora Muheim, Diana Krasovskaya
Supervision of data collection: David Inman, Marine Vuillermet, Kellen Parker van Dam, Natalia Chousou-Polydouri
Bauman, James. 1980. Introduction to Pit River Language and Culture. Anchorage: National Bilingual Materials Development Center, Rural Education, University of Alaska. 84pp.
Beck, David. 2000. Grammatical Convergence and the Genesis of Diversity in the Northwest Coast Sprachbund. Anthropological Linguistics 42(2). 147–213.
Campbell, Lyle & Verónica Grondona. 2012. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide. (The World of Linguistics, 2.) De Gruyter Mouton.
Corris, Miriam. 2006. A grammar of Barupu: a language of Papua New Guinea. University of Sydney dissertation. (xxii+411pp.)
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryana syntax. University of London dissertation. (303pp.)
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Distance Contrasts in Demonstratives (v2020.3). In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Zenodo.
Diessel, Holger. 2014. Demonstratives, Frames of Reference, and Semantic Universals of Space. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(3). 116–132.
Duff-Tripp, Martha. 1997. Gramática del idioma yanesha' (amuesha). (Serie Lingüística Peruana, 43.) 1st edn. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. 283pp.
Duncan, Lachlan. 2010. The syntactic structure of K'ichee' Mayan. State University of New York at Albany dissertation. (lxviii+586pp.)
Eaton, Helen. 2010. A Sandawe Grammar. (SIL e-Books, 20.) Dallas, Texas: SIL International. 206pp.
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2001. The Morphosyntax of Mekens (Tupi). University of Chicago dissertation. (xvii+488pp.)
Gnerre, Maurizio. 2015. Encoding Deictic Relations in Mesoamerican Languages. In Günter Holtus and Fernando Sánchez Miret (eds.), Manual of deixis in Romance Languages, 611–658. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A grammar of Cavineña. (Mouton Grammar Library, 44.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. xxiv+900pp.
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. Zetten: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen dissertation. (xvii+597pp.)
Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America. (LOT dissertation series, 301.) Utrecht: LOT.
Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2016. Noun Phrase (NP). In Muysken, Pieter and Harald Hammarström and Olga Krasnoukhova and Neele Müller and Joshua Birchall and Simon van de Kerke and Loretta O'Connor and Swintha Danielsen and Rik van Gijn and George Saad (eds.), South American Indian Language Structures (SAILS) Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir. (Languages of the World/Materials, 372.) München: Lincom. viii+97pp.
Pixabaj, Telma A Can. 2017. K’iche’. In The Mayan languages, 461–499. Routledge.
Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìino Mó-dì): Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik, 12.) Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. xv+490pp.
Sakel, Jeanette. 2004. A Grammar of Mosetén. (Mouton Grammar Library, 33.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. xxxi+504pp.
Thompson, Laurence C. & M. Dale Kinkade. 1990. Languages. In Wayne Suttles (ed.), Northwest Coast, 30–51. Smithsonian Institution, Washington: Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Vuillermet, Marine. 2012. A Grammar of Ese Ejja, a Takanan language of the Bolivian Amazon. Université Lumière Lyon 2 dissertation. (xvi+736pp.)
Weber, David John. 1989. A Grammar Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 112.) Berkeley: Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. xxv+490pp.
EV stands for empty vowel, a vowel necessary for the syllabic structure. ↩
According to Diessel (2013), in roughly 70% of languages, the stems of the pronominal and adnominal deictics have the same form. ↩