Open Linguistics 2016; 2: 132–159
Research Article
Open Access
Joe Blythe*, Kinngirri Carmelita Mardigan, Mawurt Ernest Perdjert, Hywel Stoakes
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
DOI 10.1515/opli-2016-0007
Received June 13, 2015; accepted February 11, 2016
Abstract: Rather than using abstract directionals, speakers of the Australian Aboriginal language
Murrinhpatha make reference to locations of interest using named landmarks, demonstratives and
pointing. Building on a culturally prescribed avoidance for certain placenames, this study reports on the
use of demonstratives, pointing and landmarks for direction giving. Whether or not pointing will be used,
and which demonstratives will be selected is determined partly by the relative epistemic incline between
interlocutors and partly by whether information about a location is being sought or being provided. The
reliance on pointing for the representation of spatial vectors requires a construal of language that includes
the visuo-corporal modality.
Keywords: Multimodal utterances, indexical reference, name avoidance, sequence organization, gesture
and pointing, collaborative reference, epistemics, demonstratives.
1 Introduction
When a particular location shouldn’t be named overtly, how do interlocutors understand each other
when they can’t use abstract direction terms? In the Murrinhpatha language the only abstract directions
within the horizontal plane represented lexically or grammatically are ahead and behind. In the absence
of ‘absolute’ terminologies such as north, south, east and west; upstream and downstream, windward and
leeward, ‘relative’ terminologies (such as to the left and to the right, etc.), Murrinhpatha speakers rely on
landmarks, demonstratives and pointing to indicate directions of referred to locations. This study harnesses
culturally specific taboos on certain placenames to shed light on how speakers identify places and speak
about movement through the landscape. Of particular interest is how and when speakers use the visuocorporal modality to achieve reference to places. In a naturalistic experiment in location identification,
we demonstrate how Murrinhpatha speakers utilize landmarks and deictic devices (demonstratives and
path-encoding adverbials, e.g., hither and thither, iconic gestures and pointing, and discourse anaphora) to
convey the directional vectors that aren’t encoded lexically.
When possible, the simplest way to make an initial reference to a landmark in social interaction is
to use an appropriate placename. The utility of proper names – be they personal names or placenames
– is that they convey ‘recognisability’, at least to somebody. When interlocutors use personal names they
imply that the referent is someone that their addressee should know, or know about (if not personally, then
at least by reputation), and that they should endeavour to recognise the person in question (Sacks and
Schegloff 1979; Schegloff 1996; 2007a; Downing 1996; Heritage 2007; Blythe 2013). Interlocutors can utilise
this connoted recognisability by using names as in-group terms so as to include in-the-know recipients
and potentially exclude co-present others. Placenames are equally recognitional. Unless embedded within
Article note: Part of a special issue on place reference in conversation, edited by Lila San Roque and N.J. Enfield
*Corresponding author: Joe Blythe, Macquarie University, University of Melbourne, E-mail: joe.blythe@mq.edu.au
Hywel Stoakes, University of Melbourne
Kinngirri Carmelita Mardigan, Mawurt Ernest Perdjert, Kanamkek Yile Ngala Wadeye Aboriginal Languages Centre
© 2016 Joe Blythe et al., published by De Gruyter Open.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
133
descriptive noun phrases that make them designedly non-recognitional (e.g., a place called Mukinbudin),
the use of placenames in conversation carries the implication that targeted recipients should know at least
something about the place in question, even if they haven’t personally been there. Even when speakers
suspect their addressees don’t know about a particular person or location, they regularly insert proper
names into descriptions (e.g., my uncle John, a beach called Yeltjerr) so that they can later utilise the bare
names on their own (Sacks and Schegloff 1979, 19; Downing 1996, 110). Whether dealing with persons or
places, proper names used as recognitionals make a beeline for the referent, thus buying interlocutors out
of the need to describe the referent in other ways (Searle 1997, 591).
There are complications associated with using proper names in social interaction. Proper names are
particularly prone to retrieval blockages when conversational participants suffer momentary lapses of
memory (Cohen and Burke 1993; Burke et al. 1991; Burton and Bruce 1992; Semenza 2006; Brennen et al.
1990). Sometimes the social setting calls for delicacy that renders certain proper names less appropriate
than titles, kinterms or role descriptions. As with all Australian Aboriginal languages, Murrinhpatha
speakers observe a variety of taboos on personal names (Stanner 1937; Blythe 2009a; 2009b; 2013). The
severe restrictions (e.g., name avoidance between mothers- and sons-in-law and between opposite sex
siblings, avoiding naming the recently deceased) extend to both namesakes and placenamesakes of the
person whose name shouldn’t be mentioned. This extension of personal name avoidance practices into
the domain of place reference provides the setting for a naturalistic and culturally authentic experiment in
location identification.
This interactional experiment investigates place reference as a collaborative process. The complicating
effects of placename avoidance on location identification are here exploited to shed light on how
Murrinhpatha speakers represent their orientation within, and movement through, the landscape. Because
extensive use of gestural pointing and the apparent absence of both absolute and relative directionals were
noted in Blythe’s corpus of informal Murrinhpatha conversation, an experiment utilising GIS information
was devised to shed light on the relationships between pointing and demonstrative usage. From the video
recording of the experiment, pointing and gaze tokens, demonstratives and path-encoding adverbials were
identified and coded. These data provide insights into the strategies Murrinhpatha speakers use to talk
about the orientation of landmarks with respect to one other, and with respect to the location of the speech
event. It is particularly noteworthy that the frequency of use of particular deictic devices varies according
to whether information about the location is being sought or being provided.
In §2 we provide background to the study, both in terms of the cultural and linguistic setting of
Murrinhpatha speakers, and the context of spatial representation more broadly. In §3 we discuss personal
and placename avoidance, giving examples from naturally occurring interactional discourse. In §4 we
discuss the setup of the placename experiment and the ensuing pragmatic strategies used to work around
the naming restrictions imposed on the selected locations. In §5 we discuss the relationships between
pointing, the use of demonstratives, epistemics and sequence structure. In §6 we discuss the place of
pointing and gesture within a broader, more inclusive view of the language faculty.
2 The Cultural and Linguistic Background
Murrinhpatha is a lingua franca spoken by approximately 2700 people in Wadeye, Nganmarriyanga and
in various smaller communities within the Fitzmaurice and Moyle Rivers region of Australia‘s Northern
Territory (see Figure 1). It is spoken by people affiliated to the Murrinhpatha, Marri Ngarr, Marri Tjevin,
Marri Amu, Magati Ke, Ngan’gityemerri and Jaminjung languages, who prior to the 1940s and 50s, would
have been multilingual hunter-gatherers. Today all Aboriginal people in this region, children included,
speak Murrinhpatha natively on a daily basis. The other languages are extremely endangered and are no
longer being acquired by children (Forshaw et al. in press).
134
J. Blythe, et al.
Figure 1: The Fitzmaurice and Moyle Rivers region of Australia‘s Northern Territory.
The Murrinhpatha language1 is headmarking and highly polysynthetic. As yet no comprehensive grammatical
description has been undertaken. Previous research has described the language’s genetic status (I. Green
2003), its complex verbal morphosyntax (Blythe 2009a; 2010a; 2013; Nordlinger 2010b; 2010a; Mansfield
2014; Street 1980; 1987; Walsh 1976; 1996; 1987), the system of nominal classification (Walsh 1993; 1997),
transitivity (Nordlinger 2011), the marking of tense, aspect and mood categories (Nordlinger and Caudal
2012; Mansfield 2014), and the kinship system (Blythe 2012; in press). The use of Murrinhpatha grammar
in social interaction has been investigated with reference to persons (Blythe 2009a; 2010b; 2013), and
repair practices (Blythe 2015). Less well understood is how spatial categories are represented lexically,
grammatically, or otherwise. This paper makes an initial attempt to bridge this gap in understanding.
The literature on spatial representation in the world’s languages is vast (see Levinson 2003; Levinson
and Wilkins 2006a; Pederson et al. 1998; Pederson 2003, inter alia). In most of this literature, spatial
distinctions are conceptualised in terms of how an object, the figure, is located with respect to another
object or location – the ground (after Talmy 1983). Topological (non-angular) reference is when the figure
and the ground are collocated in space (Levinson and Wilkins 2006b, 3). When they are not collocated in
space, reference to the figure is coordinated through an angular vector that is expressed lexically, through
frames of reference, or through spatial deixis.
1 The spelling used here Murrinhpatha is the revised spelling recently adopted in the community of Wadeye. The language has
also been spelled Murrinh-Patha, Murrinhy Patha, Murinbata and Murinbada.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
135
To varying degrees, the world’s languages utilize three types of referential frames: the relative, the
absolute and the intrinsic. With an intrinsic frame of reference, the location of the figure is expressed as
within a search domain projecting out from a salient facet of the ground object (e.g., “the ball is in front of
the house”, “behind the car”, etc.).2 If you rotate the ground object in space, the angular specification will
change. The intrinsic frame of reference is a binary relation – the interlocutors’ viewpoint is not expressed.
Relative and absolute frames of reference are ternary relationships. A relative frame of reference
projects figure and ground coordinates relative to the orientation of the viewer’s body (“the ball is on the
left of the chair” / “right of the man”). Between the figure and the ground, a directional vector is projected as
radiating out from the viewpoint of the interlocutors (see Figure 2). An absolute frame of reference projects
ground coordinates that are external to the scene, and unchanging (“southwest of Darwin”, “upstream from
here”). With an absolute frame of reference, the angle of the projected vector lies between the figure and the
viewpoint of the interlocutors, as radiating from the ground (see Figure 3). The direction of the figure from
the viewer can be inferred from the angle of the projected vector.
Figure 2: Vector projection within a relative frame of reference (e.g., the Figure is to the left of the Ground).
In the event that a place reference is constructed relative to the location of the speech event (i.e., where
the viewpoint of the interlocutors is the ground location), then a deictic vector is inferred relative to the
orientation of the interlocutors. One way to convey this vector is by pointing. From its source (the origo), the
pointing gesture (hereafter ‘point’) projects a trajector toward the figure – interpreted as the target of the
point – thus providing the vector of the trajectory (see Figure 4).3
Australian languages are famous for using predominantly absolute directional terms. Arrernte (Wilkins
2002), Guugu Yimidhirr (Haviland 1993; Levinson 1992) and Kuuk Thaayorre (Gaby 2012), for instance, are
among the many that approximate the cardinal directions (north, south, west and east). Other languages
like Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt 2006) orient directional axes along drainage lines, or according to
prevailing winds, like MalakMalak (Hoffmann 2013). As far as we know, the relative directions left and
right are unreported in Australian languages. Murrinhpatha appears to lack both absolute and relative
terminologies. Although a comprehensive study of spatial terms remains to be completed, investigations
to date have revealed the intrinsic to be the dominant, and very probably, only frame of reference. Thus
the intrinsic terms thakuny (the left hand) and and batbat (the right hand) are seldom, if ever, extended
2 Objects that lack salient facets (fronts, backs and sides), like balls and trees, will not serve as grounds for intrinsically framed
references.
3 In most accounts deixis is considered to be external to the frames of reference typology. However Danziger (2010) proposes a
fourth Direct frame of reference for situations where viewer and ground are merged.
136
J. Blythe, et al.
beyond the body in naturalistic settings.4 Even under experimental conditions (i.e., the man-and-tree task,
Levinson et al. 1992), we find only occasional innovative usage of intrinsic terms in a quasi-relative fashion.
Thus, in the contrastive example (1), the angular vector necessary for expressing a ternary spatial relation
(as in, “the tree is to the left of the man”) is inferrable, but isn’t lexically or grammatically encoded.
Figure 3: Vector projection within an absolute frame of reference (e.g., the Figure is west/upwind of the Ground).
Figure 4: In pointing the angle of the indicated vector is interpreted relative to the physical orientation of the interlocutors.
4 Thakuny and batbat are unattested in Blythe’s corpus of transcribed Murrinhpatha conversation (4 hours and 48 minutes,
to date).
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
137
(1) 20150608JB_ManTree_2Sync_530055_531926
Thakuny thay pirrim (0.2) Karduka batbat pirrim ka[nyethuwarda memmirl.]
thakuny thay pirrim
kardu
-ka
batbat
left
tree 3SG.S.stand(3).NFUT NC:HUMAN -TOP right
pirrim
kany -gathu -warda mem
-birl
3SG.S.stand(3).NFUT PROX -hither -TEMP 3SG.S.HANDS.RR.NFUT -look.back
The tree is on the left. The human is on the right
[looking this way. ]
[((points to self)) ]
Such uses are intrinsic because the viewer’s body is parsed onto the viewer’s location, as ground, and a
search domain is projected from the viewer’s sides, as a binary spatial relation (Majid et al. 2004, 109; cf.
Danziger 2010). Similarly, there is no evidence for the intrinsic directions kangkarl and pepenyi (“up” and
“down”), kumparra and tirduk (“ahead” and “behind”) being used in an overtly relative fashion. Because
the only detected frame of reference is the intrinsic (and binary), the specification of angular vectors must
be accomplished through spatial deixis, rather than through ternary frames of reference. In this very strict
sense, the spoken language is effectively ‘directionless’. Abstract intrinsic terms do exist, but because they
are independent of the viewer, they don’t indicate the direction the viewer must gaze to see the figure.5
Murrinhpatha speakers point with their hands and with their heads (mostly their foreheads or chins,
and seldom with their lips). Compared with Central Australian and Arnhem Land groups who have highly
developed alternate sign languages (Kendon 2013; J. Green and Wilkins 2014; Wilkins 1997), Murrinhpatha
speakers have very few conventionalised handsigns.6 This avails virtually the entire manual modality for
pointing. Murrinhpatha speakers do not use the space behind them for abstract metaphorical points (e.g.,
to past time). Nor, when referring to locations that are behind them, do they transpose their deictic centre
(unlike “relatively framed” French speaking pointers) so as to use mainly left, right and forward oriented
points (Le Guen 2011). When Murrinhpatha speakers point they use the full 360° of gestural space. The GIS
data reveal that physical points to quite distant locations can be remarkably precise (cf. Haviland 1993).
As we will see in §5, points are frequently combined with demonstratives and path-of-motion adverbials.
Clues to Murrinhpatha speakers’ reliance on pointing emerged during Blythe’s fieldwork in Wadeye, whilst
driving. On numerous occasions, the people who knew the route to a particular destination were (against
the driver’s better judgement) sitting the back seat of the car. If the driver does not turn backwards to see
the speaker’s points or direction of gaze, instructions like “here”, “there”, “this way” and “that way” are
rendered all but useless.
Within absolute referential frames, co-speech pointing has been investigated in the Australian language
Guugu Yimidhirr (Haviland 1993; 1996) and in Arandic languages (Wilkins 2003; J. Green and Wilkins
2014). Le Guen (2011) compares pointing in absolutely framed Yucatec Maya (cf. Bohnemeyer 2011) with
relatively framed French. Clark (2003) examines pointing and object placement with use of demonstratives
from a semiotic perspective (in English) while Enfield (2003) uses pointing in Lao interaction to elucidate
demonstrative meaning. We add to this body of research by investigating the nexus between pointing
and demonstrative use, particularly from the perspective of sequence and the epistemic incline between
interlocutors.
5 However, as mentioned above, when viewer and ground are collocated in space, intrinsic directions may be parsed off the
viewer’s body in a quasi-relative fashion. Of these, the saggital directions (ahead and behind) are the only directions to have
been attested in naturalistic discourse. As such, deixis or place descriptions are required for all locations that are neither ahead
nor behind the viewer. Even these directions are frequently accompanied by points.
6 This is perhaps true of the Daly region more broadly. In his very thorough survey of Aboriginal signing systems, Kendon
notes that as one progresses from the desert areas (Central Australia) northward into the Kimberley and Fitzmaurice region,
the degree of sign-language development is increasingly attenuated (Kendon 2013, 58). No signing systems are reported for any
of the Daly languages. However, in the last 10-15 years handsigns associated with heavy metal and/or hiphop have emerged in
Wadeye. These have not yet been investigated.
138
J. Blythe, et al.
3 Personal and Placename Avoidance
The Fitzmaurice and Moyle Rivers’ region of Australia’s Northern Territory is known locally as the Thamarrurr
region. Within this region, there are some 22 exogamous patrilineal clans whose members share the same
sets of clan totems. In Murrinhpatha the clan totems are called ngakumarl (Falkenberg 1962; Stanner 1936;
Ward 1983). Each clan has an estate containing several significant sites (ngugumingki) which are said to
have been created by totemic ancestors in the dreaming. Various shared ngakumarl totems (e.g., crows,
butterflies, bamboo, white clay, the sun, certain vegetables, fish and game, etc.) are associated with each
ngugumingki. The ngugumingki, and the estates on which they lie, are also associated with the particular
language that the associated totemic ancestors were speaking at the time the land was created.
Indigenous personal names are markers of clan membership. Predominantly, they are either ngakumarl
totems associated with the individual’s clan (such as kalinykun wasp, lurrinyin ‘cicada’, yuwirrnga ‘ghost bat’)
or the names of locations on the individual’s clan estate (such as mawurt, kinngirri, kilangkany, etc.). Usually
these are ngugumingki. If a person with the same name as one of these locations dies, or stands in an avoidance
relationship to somebody that requires them to avoid his/her personal name, then the constraints on the use
of that name apply equally to the place as apply to the person. Although most places that are potentially
subject to naming taboos have certain totemic significance, the restrictions do not apply because they are
totemic sites, per se. Rather, the restrictions relate to their phonetic similarity with the names of persons
deceased, or persons that stand in avoidance relationships to the participants in conversation.7
Because placenames are recognitionals, there can be informational consequences of avoiding them.
When a video of a dreaming story was recorded as part of a cultural maintenance program, the recordist
noted that the two female owners of the country narrating the story hadn’t mentioned the name of the
site. The principle teller Elizabeth had avoided the name because the particular ngugumingki, Nirrpi, a
sun dreaming, has the same name as a man of her own clan that she calls ngathan ‘brother’ (hence, she
here observes opposite sex-sibling avoidance). So that both the story and the name of the location could
be recorded for posterity, the recordist urged the tellers to add an addendum to their narration. In this
addendum, Lucy collaboratively completes Elizabeth’s unfinished turns (lines 7, 11 and 18) by producing the
avoided name on her behalf (at the arrowed lines 9, 13, 17 and 20).
(2) Kardu Pe – Waterlily Woman (20041016JB02_435016_461711)
1
Eliz
2
3 Eliz
4
5 Lucy
6
Karduka wurri- wurrinidha wurrinidhaya kardu peyu karda;
kardu
-ka wurri-[truncated] wurrini
-dha
NC:HUMAN -TOP STRI
3SG.S.6go.PIMP -PIMP
wurrini
-dha -ya kardu
pe
-yu
3SG.S.go(6).PIMP -PIMP -CL NC:HUMAN waterlily_fruit -CL
She we- Waterlily woman went in here,
(0.9)
kanawup,
kanam
-wup
3SG.S.be(4).NFUT-stay
she stayed {here}.
(0.9)
°°pankurrk.°°
pan
-kurrk
3SG.S.slash(23).NFUT-dig
She dug a hole
(0.3)
karda
PROX
7 The extension of personal naming taboos to homophones or near homophones of the restricted name has been reported for
a number of Australian languages (Dixon 1980; Douglas 1964; Hart 1930; Nash and Simpson 1981).
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
7
Eliz
8
9 Lucy →
10
11 Eliz
12
13 Lucy →
14
15 Eliz
16
17 Lucy →
18 Eliz
19
20 Lucy →
21 Eliz
22 Lucy
23 Eliz
139
pankurrk, (.) weyi kanardi, (0.5) daka kanyika murrinyka,
pan
-kurrk weyi kanam
-rdi
3SG.S.slash(23).NFUT-dig hole 3SG.S.be(4).NFUT-enter
da
-ka kanyi -ka murriny -ka
NC:PL/T -TOP PROX -TOP name -TOP
She dug a hole and went into it, here at the place called...
(0.6)
Nirrpi.
place_name
Nirrpi.
(0.8)
Yi daka murriny kanyika;,
yi
da
-ka murriny kanyi -ka
and NC:PL/T -TOP name
PROX -TOP
And the name of this place is...
(0.5)
Nirrpiwa.
nirrpi
-wa
placename-EMPH
Nirrpi.
(0.2)
Murriny lurrutj nayu.
murriny
lurrutj na
-yu
NC:SPEECH strength 2SG.S.say/do(34).FUT -CL
Say the name louder!
(0.2)
↑Nirrpiwa [Dawa (murrinyyu.)
nirrpi
-wa
da
-wa
murriny
-yu
placename -EMPH NC:PL/T -EMPH NC:SPEECH -CL
Nirrpi is the name of the place.
[Daka murriny kanyika:,
da
-ka murriny kanyi -ka
NC:PL/T -TOP name
PROX -TOP
The name of this place is ...
(0.9)
Nirrpi.
placename
Nirrpi.
Da ngaywa dayu.
da
ngay
-wa
da
-yu
NC:PL/T 1SG.POSS -EMPH NC:PL/T -CL
It’s my country.
I daka ngaywa.
i
da
-ka
ngay
-wa
kanyi -yu
and NC:PL/T -TOP 1SG.POSS -EMPH PROX -CL
And it’s my country.
He he he he.
One way that conversationalists instruct each other to produce a tabooed name on their behalf is by using
the verb nangkawadha ‘say the name’. In extract (3) four young men are sitting on top of a hill called
140
J. Blythe, et al.
Thuykem. Evidently one man, Mike8, cannot pronounce the name Thuykem. Thuykem also happens to be a
woman’s name.
Figure 5: Seated on the arc-shaped hill Thuykem, Mike (on the right) is more or less facing the nearby hill Bape.
(3) Thuykem 20110824JBvideoGYHM100_02_1370156_1386710
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mike
ya da palyirr panguwathu (0.4) wurrankek;
ya da
palyirr pangu -gathu wurran
-kek
HES NC:PL/T hill
DIST -hither 3SG.S.6go.NFUT -be_rainbow
Um that hill that runs along there in front of us in an arc… ((gazing SW))
(1.3)
Mike burrk damatha wurran.
burrk damatha wurran
lovely INTS
3SG.S.6go.NFUT
is really lovely.
(1.3)
Mike → [ palyirr da warda kanyire. ]=[da- da nangka↑wa↓dha.]
palyirr da
warda kanyi -re
da- da
hill
NC:PL/T TEMP PROX -PERL STRI NC:PL/T
na
-ngkawadha
2SG.S.8say/do.FUT-say_name
This hill around here now, sa- say its name!
Mike [(headpoints SW to top of hill)] [(turns to face Dave)
]
(1.0)
Greg Bape.
placename
Bape
8 The four young men in this extract are referred to by pseudonym.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
141
9 Mike
10
11 Rob
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
((shakes head))
(0.4)
Thuy:kem.
placename
Thuykem
Dave [Thuykem.]
placename
Thuykem
Greg [Thuykem.]
placename
Thuykem
Mike ((nods))
(0.4)
Mike → murriny dungengnu.
murriny
du
-ngeng -nu
NC:SPEECH 2SG.S.17.FUT -say -FUT
Say the name!
(0.7)
Dave palyirr Thuykem.
hill
placename
The hill Thuykem
(0.2)
Mike yu da palyirr- (.) nyinda kanyi.
yu
da
palyirr nyinda kanyi
yeah NC:PL/T hill
ANAPH PROX
Yeah that’s- this hill here ((nodding)).
(0.3)
The four boys are sitting on top of the hill called Thuykem admiring the view, talking about places they
can see. At lines 1 and 3 Mike announces that the hill spanning in an arc out in front of them is beautiful.
Then, specifying the hill on which they are currently sitting, he turns toward Dave (line 6) and instructs
him to say the name (line 5). The instruction is comprised of the ‘place/time’ noun-class marker (da) plus
the imperative verb nangkawadha, ‘say the name.’ When Dave doesn’t respond, co-present Greg proffers
the name of the nearby hill (Bape, line 8) which more or less faces Mike as he is seated on the ground
facing south (see Figure 5). Mike disconfirms this more distant candidate with a headshake (line 9). At lines
11-13, Robert, Dave and Greg each proffer the name Thuykem. Nodding at line 14, Mike confirms the present
location, Thuykem, to be the hill he is talking about. At line 16 he then instructs Greg to say the name again.9
Greg obliges at line 18. Nodding, at line 20 Mike again confirms this to be correct.
At lines 1 and 3 of this conversational extract Mike combines eyegaze and/or headpoints with distal
(pangu) and proximal (kanyi) demonstratives – rather than explicitly mentioning the hill by name. In the
remainder of this paper we report results from a communication experiment that rides on this cultural
practice of placename avoidance. Persons with different knowledge states must converge such that they
both understand a proposed destination, despite the name of the destination being, for all intents and
purposes, ‘unavailable’ to the more knowledgeable participant. As with extract (3), pointing, gaze and
demonstrative usage are central to the analyses.
9 This instruction uses the “speech” noun class marker murriny and the imperatively framed speech verb dungeng, here construable as “say the name”.
142
J. Blythe, et al.
4 The Name Avoidance Experiment
For a number of years, authors Kinngirri Mardigan, Mawurt Perdjert and other Wadeye residents have
taken first author Blythe to visit numerous named locations where navigational coordinates were recorded
with a GPS. Additional places were identified using satellite imagery for which pins were dropped so as to
record the longitudes and latitudes. Before running the experiment, approximately 90 named locations had
been identified. After running the experiment, all additional locations mentioned in the recording were
identified, bringing the total database to 132 locations that were either named or described in some fashion.
Twelve named sites were selected for twelve trials. These are located on the estates of seven different
clans: three Murrinhpatha clans, two Marringarr clans, and two Marri Tjevin clans. The video camera was
aligned due north (0˚). For each trial, either Kinngirri or Mawurt was given the name of a location which
was not to be pronounced by the knowing participant. The other enquired as to where they were supposed
to be travelling the following day for a picnic. Each could say whatever they liked, except that person given
the name was not to pronounce it. Through a series of questions and answers the two had to come to a
shared understanding about where the picnic would be. Invariably, each trial culminated in a successful
guess which was confirmed by the participant in-the-know as being the intended location. Kinngirri and
Mawurt received the bare minimum of instruction as to how they should arrive at a shared understanding
– merely that they could say or ask whatever they liked, except that the person in-the-know shouldn’t
mention the placename.10
The experiment has parallels with the various director-matcher tasks which seek to examine collaborative
reference in interactional settings (e.g., Clark and Wilkes-Gibbs 1986; Brennan and Clark 1996; Pederson
et al. 1998). However, we find the terms director and matcher inappropriate for the dataset because the
guessing participant sometimes gave information about how a proposed route should be recognised, and
the in-the-know participant sometimes requested information.11 We thus use knower and guesser as labels
because they better convey roles these participants play within the trails.
It was hoped that by using pre-identified locations, a net could be cast for contextualised data to
illuminate the relationships between pointing and demonstrative use, and to find any as-yet undocumented
directional vocabulary. No new directional vocabulary emerged however, so we are reporting on the
demonstrative and pointing data.
5 Mechanisms for Identifying the Location
Kinngirri Mardigan and Mawurt Perdjert successfully identified all twelve locations, taking between 40
seconds and 420 seconds to confirm the correct locations.12 Unbeknownst to first author Blythe, two of the
selected locations were actually subject to naming taboos for the guessing participant. In these cases, the
first letter of the placename was presented for confirmation (thus, ‘W’ was proffered for the placename
Wumirdim and N was proffered for the placename Nardirri). Due to a problem with the video camera, the
first trial was not transcribed.
In attempting to converge on the correct location, participants applied one or more of the following
diagnostic devices:
(i) Gestural provision of the proposed vector. Both knowers and guessers used their hands and heads to
point in the direction of the proposed destination (i.e., the destination they knew to have been given,
or the direction of the destination they suspected to have been given).
10 As well as participating in the experiments as subjects, Kinngirri and Mawurt helped assemble the database of named locations, providing both ethnographic information and locational information. They also provided translations and glosses for
the recorded text, as well as commenting on the written version of the paper.
11 Furthermore, in most director matcher tasks, each participants have separate arrays of objects or drawings which are obscured from the other participant’s view by a screen. In this experiment, participants had full view of each other and whatever
they happened to have at hand.
12 Mean = 177 sec. The transcribed trials yielded approximately 30 minutes of naturalistic talk in interaction.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
143
(ii)
Description/characterization of the proposed destination. Participants described or inquired about
what the destination is like – whether or not it is inland or on the coast, whether it is a beach,
woodland, a waterhole, a creek, or a floodplain, etc. Participants often talked about the varieties of
bush-foods to be found in the area.
(iii) Indication of the distance to the proposed destination. This was either done overtly by describing the
destination as manda (‘nearby’) or ngatjparr (‘far’), gesturally through an elevated point13, or covertly
by indicating whether the destination warrants driving to, or whether walking should suffice.
(iv) Description/characterization of the way to the destination. The relevant roads are described as straight
or bumpy. Mentions of particular river crossings were used to specify the required roads. Participants
also pointed to one of the six main tracks out of the community of Wadeye, so as to indicate from
whence the journey should begin.
(v) Characterization of the proffered location. If the guesser proffered an incorrect candidate location,
as a manner of disconfirmation, the other sometimes characterized that location as being a beach, a
woodland, a fishing spot, etc., with the implication that the intended destination was not that sort of
place. Similarly, knowers might characterize the proffered location as ngatjparr (‘distant’), implying
that the intended location is nearer.
(vi) Characterization of the destination with respect to persons, or to other places. Participants might
describe the destination as within a particular clan’s estate, or as falling within a larger named
geographical area.
(vii) Guess. The guesser proffers the missing name (or first letter thereof).
(viii) Confirmation. The knower confirms the correct location (or, the correct direction, if what was being
guessed was the direction).
In order to reveal how participants use the above diagnostic devices to converge on the intended location,
the entire eighth trial is produced as extract (4). In this trial Mawurt was given the name of the location
(Werndek nganayi, also known as ‘Old mission’) and Kinngirri had to guess. Bracketed numbers to the right
of the textline indicate which diagnostic devices are being employed. All diagnostics were applied in this
trial with the exception of (vi).
(4) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_2014761_2060500
1 Mawurt
2
3 Mawurt
4 Kinngi
5
Kinngirri,
kinngirri
woman’s_name
Kinngirri,
(5.0)
nandji mutikaka dangarnurtka ku pishing purrunungime.
nandji mutika -ka dangam
-rdurt -ka
NC:RES motorcar -TOP 2SG.S.bash(14).NFUT -find -TOP
ku
pishing purru
-nu -ngime
NC:ANM fishing 1NS.INC.S.go(6).FUT -FUT -PC.F.NSIB
The fishing place you found with the motorcar, we’ll
go there.
ha ha (0.2) ku pishi::ng;
ha ha
ku
pishing
ha ha
NC:ANM fishing
Ha ha. (0.2) Fishing?
(0.6)
13 That is, where greater angles of elevation convey greater distances.
(ii, iii)
(ii)
144
J. Blythe, et al.
6 Mawurt
Yu ku balli- (.) ballinukunu.
yu ku
balli
balli
-nukunu
yes NC:ANM mud_crab mud_crab -DAT
Yeah mudcrab- for mudcrabs.
(ii)
7 Kinngi
wililire;
wilili -re
walk -INST
By walking?
(1.0)
Awu wilili daka ngatjparrwa.
awu wilili da
-ka ngatjparr -wa
no walk NC:PL/T -TOP distant -EMPH
No it’s too far to walk.
(1.5)
Yederr;
placename
Yederr?
(1.9)
Ya nyinika ngatjparrdeyida.
ya
nyini -ka ngatjparr -deyida
HES ANAPH -TOP distant -same
Ah that’s too far.
(1.3)
↑darrimurn darrimurn;↑
sand
sand
It’s a beach/sandy place. It’s a beach/sandy place
(2.8)
[kanyingu:;
]
kanyi -wangu
PROX -away
This way? ((Handpoint North))
[purrunungime- ]
purru
-nu -ngime
1NS.INC.S.go(6).FUT -FUT -PC.F.NSIB
We’ll go- ...
(0.2)
yu daka yutjpan ↑panguwardanu;
yu da
-ka yutjpan pangu -warda -nu
yes NC:PL/T -TOP straight DIST -TEMP -DAT
Yeah it’s straight {up} that way.
(0.8)
Da nan nan purrunungime;
da
nan
nan
NC:PL/T what’s_name what’s_name
purru
-nu -ngime
1NS.INC.S.go(6).FUT -FUT -PC.F.NSIB
Ah what’s the- what’s the name of the place we’re going.
(0.5)
[Old mission;]
Old mission
(iii)
8
9 Mawurt
10
11 Kinngi
12
13 Mawurt
14
15 Mawurt
16
17 Kinngi
18 Mawurt
19
20 Mawurt
21
22 Kinngi
23
24 Kinngi
(iii)
(vii)
(v)
(ii)
(i)
(iv)
(vii)
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
25 Mawurt
26
27 Kinngi
28
29 Mawurt
30
31 Mawurt
32
33 Kinngi
34
35 Mawurt
36
37 Kinngi
38 Joe
[nandjika
] mutika dangarnurtwa na,
nandji -ka mutika dangam
-rdurt -wa
na
RES -TOP motorcar 2SG.S.bash(14).NFUT -find -EMPH TAG
You’ve found a car, haven’t you?
(1.1)
Manandji ba karrim kanyi.
ma -nandji ba karrim
kanyi
not -NC:RES Oh! 3SG.S.stand(3).EXIST PROX
No- Oh there is one here. ((Points to the nearby car)).
(0.2)
Na::;
na
TAG
Really.
(0.7)
Mamba?
mamba
alright
Alright?
(1.0)
werntek nganayika;
werntek nganayi-ka
placename
-TOP
Werndek nganayi?
(0.5)
Bere mamba yutjpan yindamatha.
bere
mamba yutjpan nyinda
damatha
completion alright straight that’s_right INTS
Well right that’s exactly the one.
(0.2)
Ii he he he he
yeah ha ha ha ha
Too easy ha ha ha ha haha
145
(iii)
(vii)
(viii)
At line 3 of extract (4) Mawurt makes an initial reference to the intended location. So doing, he describes it
as a fishing place (diagnostic ii) and, by pointing out that she had found the place with a vehicle, implies
that location is sufficiently distant to warrant driving to (iii). At line 6 he describes the place as having
available mudcrabs (ii). At line 7 Kinngirri inquires whether the destination is near enough to walk to (iii).
At line 9, however, Mawurt assures her that it is not (iii). At line 11 Kinngirri proffers Yederr as a candidate
destination (vii) (Yederr being a place where mud crabs can be found) which Mawurt then describes (at line
13) as ngatjparr – far away, thereby disconfirming it as the intended location (v).
Having established that the intended destination is a beach (line 15, ii), Kinngirri at line 17 guesses that
the direction is to the north, which she indicates with a hand point (i). Abandoning his overlapped utterance
(line 18), Mawurt confirms the direction (line 20, viii), adding that the road up there is straight (yutjpan)
(iv). All this proves to be sufficient information for Kinngirri to correctly guess the location (vii), although
her overlapped guess at line 22 (old mission) doesn’t yield the desired confirmation. Her subsequent guess
(Werndek Nganayi, line 33) (vii) solicits Mawurt’s confirmation at line 35 (viii).
Broadly speaking, the diagnostics are applied within the context of information solicitation and
provision. Numerous ‘where’ questions are asked in addition to confirmation solicits (polar questions).
This series of enquiries results in a gradual lessening of the knowledge differential, to such a point that the
146
J. Blythe, et al.
speakers converge on a shared understanding of the intended destination. In the next section we examine
the deictic devices used to achieve this. The methods are mixed in order to present qualitative analyses of
individual extracts along with supporting quantative data on pointing and demonstrative frequency.
6 Pointing and Demonstrative Usage
While our ultimate objective would be to situate the Murrinhpatha demonstratives within a typological
framework of usage (Diessel 1999; Dixon 2003; Himmelmann 1996), we don’t yet understand the place each
occupies within a closed set of formal and semantic oppositions. Establishing the semantics of the bare
forms is complicated by them being frequently modified by the path-of-motion-cum-orientation clitics
-gathu (‘motion hither’/’facing us’) and -wangu (‘motion thither’/’facing away from us’), thus converting
them into spatial demonstratives, even when their inherent glosses are otherwise. The seven identified
demonstratives are listed in Table 1. Three of these (dji, kaya and ngangka) are poorly attested and barely
understood. Thus, in this section we present a usage-based account of the four best-attested demonstratives.
The unmodified spatial demonstratives ‘proximal’ (kanyi) and ‘distal’ (pangu) encode, to some degree,
the conceptual distance of the target location from (as internal to, or external from) the location of the
speech event. The proximal marks the referred-to location as within the speaker’s ‘here-space’, whereas the
unmodified distal is understood to be outside the interactionally construable boundaries of the here-space
(i.e., ‘not here’) (Enfield 2003; Cutfield 2011). When modified by -gathu (hither) or -wangu (thither), the
so-called ‘proximal’ vs. ‘distal’ distinction becomes particularly tenuous. The anaphoric and recognitional
demonstratives are essentially discourse demonstratives. The anaphoric demonstrative (nyini/nyinda,
etc.) is retrospectively oriented in pointing back to a prior anaphor. The ‘recognitional’ demonstrative
(Himmelmann 1996) (pana, etc.) is prospectively oriented in that it presents a previously unintroduced
referent as something that the targeted recipient ought to know about.
Table 1: The seven Murrinhpatha demonstratives. 14
+hither
(-gathu/-wathu/-yethu)
+thither
(-wangu)
kanyi/kanyirda
kanyethu/kanyirdathu
kanyungu
pangu/pangurda
panguwathu
panguwangu
Anaphoric
(‘that X previously mentioned’)
Recognitional
(‘that X you know about’)
Gloss unknown
nyini/yini/nyinirda/
nyinda/yinda
pana/panda/panarda
nyindathu
pandathu
nyindawangu,
nyindangu
pandawangu
dji-
djiyethu
djiwangu
Gloss unknown
kaya
Gloss unknown
ngangka
ngangkathu
ngangkangu
Gloss
Bare forms
Proximal (‘here/this’)
Distal (‘there/that’)
The experiment yielded rich data on demonstrative usage and kinesic behavior. For the purpose of coding, the
unit under investigation is the move, a basic unit of action in interaction, often built out of multiple semiotic
resources in concert (Goffman 1981; Enfield 2009). Moves are composite utterances that can be construed as
having verbal and kinesic components. Firstly, all points with hands or the head were identified and, where
applicable, correlated with the use of demonstratives and/or adverbial path-of-motion clitics. Subsequently,
turns at talk including demonstrative tokens were examined to determine whether concurrent gestural behaviour
might be devoted to indicating the physical vector of a place referent. Gestures were coded for whether they
indicated the vector and/or the distance of the referent. Moreover, iconic or symbolic components of gestures
14 The stem dji- is unattested as a free form. This particular experiment yielded four djiwangu tokens (“that way”), three of
which were accompanied by points. There were two kaya tokens (each unaccompanied by points) and no ngangka tokens surfacing in this dataset.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
147
were coded for whether motion trajectory across the landscape was conveyed (such as a ‘hither’-type flutter
of the fingers) or features of the landscape were depicted (such as a rising-then-dipping point that depicts the
crest of a simultaneously mentioned hill). All gestures deemed to provide a vector were counted as points. Of 85
potentially meaningful gestural behaviours, 74 were identified as clearly and deliberately indicating the general
direction of a place referent. 89% of these (n=66) occurred with at least one demonstrative.
The data yielded 219 demonstrative tokens and 108 path-encoding adverbials.15 All moves containing
demonstratives were subjected to similarly applicable coding, regardless of whether they combined with
physical points; as were all moves containing points that were not combined with demonstratives. Using
the GIS data, the discourse transcript and the video footage, all points were inspected to determine their
most likely referents (ie., the intended or imagined destination, a track to the destination, a previously
mentioned location, a visible object, etc.). Turns at talk containing demonstratives, and/or coinciding with
points, were coded for whether the speaker was epistemically ‘in-the-know’ as to the proposed location,
or otherwise (Heritage and Raymond 2005; Heritage 2012). Relevant moves were analysed interactionally
as either ‘subsequent’ or ‘non-subsequent’. Thus canonical question and answer adjacency pairs were
identified (Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Schegloff 2007b). Answers to questions were coded as ‘subsequent’
moves (second pair parts). Questions, preliminaries to questions, question-prompts, and post-second
elaborations following answers (if separate moves) were coded as ‘non-subsequent’.16
7 Demonstratives used with points
In Figure 6 the solid bars showing the total demonstrative counts reveal the anaphoric and proximal
demonstratives to be the most frequently used in the dataset, followed by the recognitionals.17 The hatched
bars on the right, however, reveal the proximals to be the only demonstratives to be substantially combined
with points (47 out of 65 (72%) tokens).
As the participants begin to establish the general direction of the intended destination, the first point in
almost every trial is accompanied by kanyungu (literally, ‘this-away’: the proximal demonstrative kanyi plus
the ‘thither’ path-encoding adverbial -wangu). For example, in lines 1 and 2 of extract (5), Kinngirri asks
Mawurt to confirm their intended destination by pointing eastward with an elevated hand point. Mawurt
confirms this candidate destination with the affirmation token yu (‘yes’) and a deictic expression built
around the anaphoric demonstrative (nyindawangu, ‘that previously mentioned direction’).
15 The two path-of-motion adverbials -gathu (hither) and -wangu (thither) are here deemed clitics in that they have a broad
base of attachment (to nouns, to adjectives, within the templatic structure of polysynthetic verb, even following other adverbials that elsewhere function as interjections).
16 Moves more or less equate to turn-constructional units plus, where applicable, the concommitant gesture; or, where relevant, gestures unaccompanied by speech. Subsequent moves include base adjacency second pair parts as well as pre-, insert-,
or post-expansion second pair parts (Schegloff 2007b). Whilst in principle subsequent moves needn’t be answers to questions,
they were all answers to questions in this data set.
17 As frequency comparison, we contrast the experimental data counts with counts from two informal face-to-face conversations (totalling 39 minutes, in which 199 demonstrative tokens were identified).
Experiment
Conversation
PROX
DIST
RECN
ANAPH
dji-
ngangka
kaya
No of tokens
30%
27%
7%
21%
21%
16%
41%
26%
2%
3%
0%
4%
1%
2.5%
219
199
148
J. Blythe, et al.
Figure 6: Total counts of demonstrative type tokens attested in the dataset (solid bars, left) vs. counts on the subsets of those
tokens that are accompanied by points (hatched bars, right).
(5) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_1622470_1625118
(Mawurt is knower)
1 Kinngi
[ kanyungu
kanyi -wangu
PROX –thither
this way?
2 Kinngi [((points east with open hand))
3
(0.5)
4 Mawurt yu nyindawangu kardu purrunungimeyu.
yu nyinda -wangu kardu
yes ANAPH -thither NC:HUMAN
purru
-nu -ngime
-yu
1NS.INC.S.go(6).FUT -FUT -PC.F.NSIB -CL
yeah that’s the way we’re going.
]
]
Extract (6) is similar. In lines 1 and 2 Mawurt uses the proximal demonstrative kanyungu plus a finger point
to proffer a candidate direction. As Kinngirri disconfirms this candidate with the negator wurda (‘no’),
she rules out the suggestion with the anaphoric demonstrative nyini. In extracts (6) and (7), neither of the
anaphoric demonstratives (lines 4, respectively) are accompanied by points.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
149
(6) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_1356126_1358861
(Kinngirri is knower)
1 Mawurt [kanyunguka;
kanyi -wangu -ka
PROX thither -TOP
this way
]
2 Mawurt [((points NNW))
]
3
4 Kinngi
(1.0)
wurda nyiniyu.
wurda nyini -yu
no
ANAPH -CL
not there.
One might imagine that in a language lacking abstract direction terms, points would regularly accompany
distal demonstratives (‘that way’). As extract (7) demonstrates, this certainly does happen. However, the
total number of distal demonstratives (pangu) was low overall (n=15). Furthermore, the number occurring
with points (n=7) suggests ambivalence (~50%) as to whether the distals should be accompanied by points.
In extract (7) Mawurt’s backhanded point in line 4 is timed to overlay the modified distal pangurdamathangu
‘right out that way’.
(7) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_1356126_1016785
(Kinngirri is knower)
1 Kinngi
ngarraniminangu
ngarra
-nimin -wangu
what/where -INTS -thither
Where to exactly?
2
(1.9)
3 Mawurt [mayernka ngallaka pangurdamathangu yibimkekyu.
mayern -ka ngalla -ka pangu -damatha -wangu
track -TOP big -TOP DIST -INTS
-thither
yibim
-kek
-yu
3SG.SB.lie(2).NFUT -extend_into_distance -Cl
{Along} the main road stretching right out that way.
]
4 Mawurt [((backhanded point eastward))
]
The points that accompany the distals are not discernibly different from those accompanying the proximal.
Nor are the locations/routes referred to with the proximal plus wangu (thither) less far afield than those
150
J. Blythe, et al.
referred to with the distal plus wangu. Evidently, elucidating pragmatic differences between proximalsplus-points and distals-plus-points will require continued research. Clearly though, if it is necessary to
indicate the vector with a point, the most likely demonstrative to accompany that point will be the proximal.
This holds true, regardless of the sequencing of moves, and regardless of whether the participant knows
the intended destination. However, within subsequent moves (answers to questions), the proportion of
proximals-plus-points drops to 25% (n=16) from 73% overall (n=48 proximals-plus-points). In fact, for every
demonstrative type, the proportion occurring with points, as subsequent moves, is reduced from the total
number of points (see Figure 7). Similarly, the proportion of proximals-plus-points produced by knowers (of
the intended destination) drops to 23% (n=15, from 73% overall (n=48)), with similar reductions for the other
demonstratives-plus-points, when produced by knowers (see Figure 7). The subsequent moves containing
demonstratives are closely – but not exactly – correlated with epistemic status of the speaker as knower;
in that, almost all were answers to information requests, or provided confirmations, disconfirmations or
elaborative answers to polar questions produced by guessers.18 Of the “subsequent” moves containing
demonstratives, 95.4% were produced by knowers (103/108).
Figure 7: The solid bars on the left of each group show the proportions of the various demonstrative type tokens in the corpus
that occur with points (Total). The darker hatched bars (in the middle) show the proportions of the various demonstrative
type tokens occurring with points which are produced as subsequent moves (Subsequent). The lighter hatched bars on the
right show the proportions of the various demonstrative type tokens occurring with points which are produced by the person
that knows the intended destination (Knower).
In the next section we explore effects of move sequencing and knowledge states on the use of demonstratives,
and to a lesser degree pointing. By inspecting demonstrative use for whether the relevant participant is a
knower or a guesser, and whether the participant is answering a question (as opposed to asking one, or
moving towards asking one, etc.) we have two methods of quantifying the relative knowledge asymmetries
between interlocutors, which is evidently a factor motivating demonstrative selection.
18 A Chi-squared test of independence suggests that although the Subsequent and Knower factors are independently coded
they are correlated (χ2(6, N=213) = 34.1, p < .001). Demonstrative types with low counts such as dji- (4 tokens), kaya (2 tokens) and
ngangka (zero tokens) have been excluded from the test and RECN and ANAPH have been collapsed due to low token counts.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
151
8 Demonstratives that are mostly used without points
In Figure 8 we show the proportion of demonstratives used within subsequent moves as used by knowers,
regardless of whether points occur. For every demonstrative type, the percentages are higher in the latter than
the former, but the relative inclination toward the discourse demonstratives (especially the anaphorics) is
the same. Evidently both epistemic primacy and subsequent position tend to push demonstrative selection
in the opposite direction from pointing (cf. Figure 7, in which the proximals are favoured).
While we noted earlier that the anaphoric demonstrative (nyini plus numerous variants) is the least
likely to occur with a point (10% of tokens), it is the most likely to be used ‘subsequently’, as answers to
questions (80% of tokens), and the most likely to be used by ‘knowers’ of the destination (89% of tokens).
As such, anaphoric demonstratives point back to the asked about location in order to provide sought after
information about it, or alternatively, to confirm or disconfirm it as the intended destination (as shown
by the examples in lines 4 of extracts (5) and (6)). When it comes to the pragmatic task of marking the
direction of their referents within absolute space, anaphoric demonstratives avail this information from
what has already been conveyed by the previous anaphor. The seven anaphoric demonstratives produced
by knowers that were accompanied by points were all produced either as disconfirming second pair parts,
or as elaborative post-expansions to a disconfirming second pair part. In these exceptional cases, the
previous anaphor is recalled in order to point out that the intended location is something other than the
proffered candidate. Extract (8) exemplifies.
Figure 8: The proportion of demonstrative types (both with and/or without points) that occur in subsequent moves (solid
bars), and as used by knowers (hatched bars).
(8) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_2844440_2849155
(Mawurt is knower)
1
Mawurt
>Da purrpurrk warda pana [kurrankadhuk.<
da
purrpurrk
warda pana
NC:PL/T small_&_numerous TEMP RECN
kurran
-ngkadhuk
3SG.S.go(6).EXIST -exist
There are lots of small {named} places around there.
152
J. Blythe, et al.
2
Kinngi
3
4
Mawurt
5
Mawurt
[Kulinmirrka
kulinmirr-ka
placename-TOP
Is it Kulinmirr?
(or in the Kulinmirr estate?)
(0.6)
Yini [k a n y i w a re; (.) n g a t jparr]wa nyini,
nyini kanyi -wa
-re da
ngatjparr -wa
nyini
ANAPH PROX -EMPH -LOC NC:PL/T distant -EMPH ANAPH
That’s [around this way, it’s
fur]ther.
[((points North))
]
So as to disconfirm Kinngirri’s guess (kulinmirr, line 2), Mawurt produces a nominal predicate construction
in which the previously mentioned kulinmirr, here expressed by the anaphoric demonstrative yini, is held
to be ‘this way’, as indicated by the proximal deictic expression kanyiware. In this case the northerly
backhanded point (line 5) is timed to overlay kanyiware, and is arguably not correlated at all with the
anaphoric yini. Nor is it correlated with the subsequent anaphoric nyini in the same line, which is being
used to indicate that the proffered location is further afield than the intended location. In these cases, the
anaphoric demonstrative falls within disconfirming turns being used to characterise the proffered location
in terms that don’t apply to the actual location (the 5th of the diagnostic devices listed in §4.1).
The recognitional demonstratives (pana/panda/panarda) are dedicated to introducing new referents,
or to reintroducing referents mentioned prior to interceding discourse in which different referents were
discussed in the interim. They occur in turns performing a wide range of action types including confirmation
and disconfirmation of proffered candidate locations, information provision following content questions,
and elaboration of the route by reference to recognisable landmarks. The majority of these demonstratives
(79%) are performed by knowers. These however are as likely to occur within subsequent moves as nonsubsequent moves (~50%). Because speakers use them to urge recipients to recognise referents they ought
to know about, they are used within the spatial domain to urge recipients to identify locations that they
should be able to recognise.
Although prospectively oriented, they are still discourse dependent, in that they become interpretable
by reference to the surrounding discourse. They thereby indicate vectors by virtue of their place-referents
being recognisable landmarks, or in the vicinity of recognisable landmarks. For example, in line 1 of extract
(9), Kinngirri proffers two candidate locations on the coast, south west of where the participants are sitting.
These locations are approximately 2 km apart (see Figure 9). In line 3, Mawurt disconfirms the candidates
but confirms the general vicinity. He does this with a construction containing an existential verb karrim
(‘there is an X’), an anaphoric demonstrative (nyinda) and a recognitional demonstrative (panda). A literal
translation of line 3 would be, ‘Yes, that place you know about that is there {in the vicinity of} the place(s)
you just mentioned.’ This expression conveys the appropriate vector so accurately that Kinngirri requires
only two more guesses (lines 5 and 9) to determine the correct location (see Figure 9).
(9) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_2492360 _2500361.
(Mawurt is knower)
1 Kinngi
Ditji. (0.2) Muyuwa;
ditji
muyuwa
placename placename
Is it Ditji? (0.2) Or Muyuwa?
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
2
(1.0)
3 Mawurt
Yu daka karrim (.) nyinda panda;
yu da -ka karrim
nyinda panda
yes PL/T -TOP 3SG.SB.stand(3).EXIST ANAPH RECN
Yeah it’s right in that area
(2.3)
ka↑ba:↓rniny;
kabarniny
placename
kabarniny?
(0.4)
Wurda.
No
(1.0)
thay punyek[ka;
thay_punyek-ka
placename -TOP
Thay punyek?
[Nyin::da:;
nyinda
that’s_right
Exactly
4
5 Kinngi
6
7 Mawurt
8
9 Kinngi
10 Mawurt
153
Figure 9: At roughly seventeen kilometres from where Mawurt and Kinngirri are sitting, the locations Ditji, Muyuwa, Kabarniny
and Thay Punyek lie within 2° of separation.
As extract (9) demonstrates, recognitional demonstratives avail their vectors pragmatically from landmarks
mentioned in the surrounding discourse. This is probably why only 14% of the recognitional demonstratives
occurred with points. The example in extract (10) is one that does.
154
J. Blythe, et al.
(10) 20110825_JB_video_GYHM100_01_2742140_2747795.
(Mawurt is knower)
1 Kinngi
2
3 Mawurt
4 Mawurt
5
6 Mawurt
Ma ↑Tjintiwa.
ma tjinti
-wa
but placename -EMPH
But Tjindi?
(1.5)
[Awu yinika da ngatjparr wurda nyiniyu;]=
awu nyini -ka da
ngatjparr wurda nyini -yu
no ANAPH -TOP NC:PL/T distant
No
ANAPH -CL
No, not there, that’s too far.
[((Gazes SW))
]
=Nyini[ka pepe da pandawangu.
]
nyini -ka da
pepe pana -wangu
ANAPH -TOP NC:PL/T down RECN -thither
it goes down that way that you already know about.
[((Headpoint N))
]
In extract (10) Mawurt contrastively uses anaphoric and recognitional demonstratives to disconfirm the
candidate location Kinngirri proffered in line 1. He firstly uses two anaphoric demonstratives to point out
that the proffered location is further afield than the actual location (line 3). He then uses the recognitional
demonstrative plus the ‘thither’ adverbial (pandawangu, line 5) to urge Kinngirri to recognise that her
proffered candidate lies ‘down there in a direction that {she} should be able to recall’. His concomitant
headpoint to the North (line 6) sharply contrasts with his just-prior south-westerly oriented gaze (line 4)
which is thought unlikely to have been a point.19 Much like the anaphoric example in extract (8), the point
occurs in a turn being used to disconfirm the proffered candidate (diagnostic v in §4.1).
In summary, the likelihood that a demonstrative will coincide with a point and the choice of particular
demonstrative vary according to sequence structure and the epistemic status of the speaker. When
participants don’t know the intended location and need to ask the direction, the demonstrative of choice
to embed within a question and combine with a point is the proximal.20 When in-the-know participants
are asked about the location, they are most likely to select anaphoric and/or recognitional demonstratives
to answer the question and they are quite unlikely to overlay these demonstratives with points. If, in
constructing their answers, they need to indicate the direction with a point, they are once again most
19 Although reminiscent of a head point, Mawurt’s elevated gaze to the southwest (line 4) was deemed unlikely be a point
because the candidate location and the intended location (and the tracks there-to) were oriented in the opposite direction. We
propose that as common ground is built up sequentially, visible behaviours can be analysed as potentially meaningful, or as
extraneous noise. In this case, by line 1 of extract (10), the intended location had already been established to be a long way
northwest of where Mawurt and Kinngirri are seated.
20 76% of the 25 questions (clear first pair parts) asked by guessers that contained demonstratives combined with points included the proximal demonstrative kanyi (n= 19, cf.: 3 distals (12%), 2 anaphorics (8%) and 1 recognitional (4%)).
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
155
likely to include a proximal demonstrative in the answer, perhaps alongside other (especially anaphoric)
demonstratives.
9 Conclusion
The direction-giving task being reported investigates how Murrinhpatha speakers discuss locations and
space when naming the referent is not an appropriate option. It takes advantage of the cultural constraints
on pronouncing place-namesakes of individuals whose personal names are subject to naming taboos.
Because this is a live issue for Murrinhpatha speakers, a fabricated name avoidance experiment is an
authentic one that mirrors issues faced everyday within conversational interaction. That the place reference
strategies discussed here are evidenced elsewhere in Blythe’s corpus of informal face-to-face conversation
suggests the solutions adopted in this experiment are representative of place reference strategies used in
non-experimental settings.
Initial moves function as questions when there is a knowledge differential between interlocutors
(Labov and Fanshel 1977; Heritage and Roth 1995; Heritage and Raymond 2012); yet without direct access
to what participants are thinking, this differential isn’t easily amenable to quantification. Nevertheless,
in this study we have employed two methods for approximating knowledge states as interlucutors speak
and point. Firstly we coded for their knowledge states (as knower or guesser) with respect to the intended
destination; that is, whether or not the speaker was epistemically privileged. We then independently coded
for action sequencing, focussing on subsequent moves. The high correlation here is unsurprising. Although
non-subsequent moves in this dataset were not always questions, subsequent moves invariably dealt with
the provision of solicited information – answers, effectively. Answers are where we see a levelling of the
epistemic incline between interlocutors. We thus treat sequence structure and epistemic priviledge as
quantifiable proxies for what interlocutors think about when deciding on whether to point, and on which
demonstrative to select. Each provides independent stereoscopic viewpoints on the speaker/pointers’
mental states as they make their interactional moves.
In suggesting that Murrinhpatha is virtually ‘directionless’, we wish to defeat the connotation that the
language has any sort of deficit. Although the lexicon and grammar seem not to allow ternary frames of
reference, Murrinhpatha speakers retain a precise spatial orientation and are in no way hamstrung by the
apparent absence of abstract direction terms. By expressing directional vectors deictically (gesturally and/
or as implicated through discourse anaphora) they readily make themselves understood, despite potential
complications arising from culturally specific restrictions on particular placenames.
Human beings all need to refer to places and convey their orientation within the landscape, and never
more so than when giving directions. Although we are generally not wholly reliant on language for this task,
it is seldom done without language altogether. At issue here is where, when and how deictic contrasts are
conveyed. Some researchers (e.g., McNeill 2000; Goldin-Meadow 2014) suggest that our conceptualisation
of human language should be broadened to include co-speech gesture. Murrinhpatha provides compelling
support for this proposal. In Murrinhpatha co-speech pointing gestures accompanying demonstratives are
not merely helpful additions but are a necessary part of spatial deixis, and presumably this holds true with
all languages. But to consider these points as external to the language is to somehow leave Murrinhpatha
with a deficit that is not evidenced under normal circumstances. While it remains to be determined how
speakers cope with direction giving when they can’t see each other pointing, this intriguing question
has only become an issue relatively recently – since telephones, computers and radios have enabled
Murrinhpatha speakers to distribute speech events between separate locations. The language didn’t emerge
with these technologies, although they might impact its development into the future. In Murrinhpatha the
vectorial component of spatial deixis has fallen squarely into the visuo-corporal modality, especially when
information is being sought and a placename is unavailable. So for Murrinhpatha at least, points have
arguably become a necessary part of the language itself.
156
J. Blythe, et al.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful for Lucinda Davidson, Jacqueline Tosi and Liz Lennox’s assitance
in preparing the transcripts for analysis. The paper has benefited from the advice and comments of
Jenny Green, Aung Si, Alice Gaby, Lila San Roque, Nick Enfield, the participants in the Place, language
and landscape workshop (Radboud University, Nijmegen, 2013) and from two anonymous reviewers. The
research was funded by the European Research Council (StG 240853) and the Australian Research Council
(DP110100961, DE130100399).
Abbreviations
ANAPH: anaphoric demonstrative
CL: clitic
DIST: distal demonstrative
EMPH: emphatic
F: feminine
FUT: future
HES: hesitation
INC: inclusive of the addressee
INTS: intensifier
LOC: locative
NC:ANM: ‘animate’ noun class
NC:HUMAN: ‘human’ noun class
NC:PL/T: ‘place/time’ noun class
NC:RES: ‘residue’ noun class
NC:SPEECH: ‘speech’ noun class
NFUT: non-future
NSIB: non-sibling
NS: non-singular
PIMP: past imperfective
PC: paucal
RECN: recognitional demonstrative
S: subject
SG: singular
STRI: same turn initiation of repair
TAG: tag particle
TEMP: temporal adverbial
TOP: topic
References
Blythe, Joe. in press. “Genesis of the Trinity: The Convergent Evolution of Trirelational Kinterms.” In Skin, Kin and Clan: The
Dynamics of Social Categories in Indigenous Australia, edited by Patrick McConvell, Piers Kelly and Sébastien Lacrampe.
Canberra: ANU EPress.
———. 2009a. “Doing Referring in Murriny Patha Conversation”. PhD thesis. Sydney: University of Sydney. http://hdl.handle.
net/2123/5388.
———. 2009b. “Prosodic Person Reference in Murriny Patha Reported Interaction.” In Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics:
Research at the Interface, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Nicole Dehé, and Anne Wichman, Volume 8:23–52.
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
———. 2010a. “From Ethical Datives to Number Markers in Murriny Patha.” In Grammatical Change: Theory and Description,
edited by Rachel Hendery and Jennifer Hendriks, 157–84. Studies in Language Change. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
———. 2010b. “Self-Association in Murriny Patha Conversation.” Edited by Ilana Mushin and Rod Gardner. Studies in
Australian Indigenous Conversation. A Special Edition of Australian Journal of Linguistics 30 (4): 447–69.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
157
———. 2012. “From Passing-Gesture to ‘True’ Romance: Kin-Based Teasing in Murriny Patha Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 44 (4): 508–28.
———. 2013. “Preference Organization Driving Structuration: Evidence from Australian Aboriginal Interaction for Pragmatically
Motivated Grammaticalization.” Language 89 (4): 883–919. doi:10.1353/lan.2013.0057.
———. 2015. “Other-Initiated Repair in Murrinhpatha.” Open Linguistics 1: 283–308. doi:10.1515/opli-2015-0003.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2011. “Spatial Frames of Reference in Yucatec: Referential Promiscuity and Task-Specificity.” Language
Sciences 33: 892–914.
Brennan, Susan E., and Herbert H. Clark. 1996. “Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in Conversation.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22 (6): 1482–93. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xlm/22/6/1482/.
Brennen, Tim, Thom Baguley, Jim Bright, and Vicky Bruce. 1990. “Resolving Semantically Induced Tip-of-the Tongue States for
Proper Nouns.” Memory and Cognition 18 (4): 339–47.
Burke, Deborah M., Donald G. MacKay, Joanna S. Worthley, and Elizabeth Wade. 1991. “On the Tip of the Tongue: What Causes
Word Finding Failures in Young and Older Adults?” Journal of Memory and Language 30 (5): 542–79. doi:10.1016/0749596X(91)90026-G.
Burton, Mike A., and Vicky Bruce. 1992. “I Recognize Your Face but I Can’t Remember Your Name: A Simple Explanation?”
British Journal of Psychology, 45–69.
Clark, Herbert H. 2003. “Pointing and Placing.” In Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, edited by Sotaro
Kita, 243–68. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. “Referring as a Collaborative Process.” Cognition 22: 1–39.
Cohen, Gillian, and Deborah M. Burke. 1993. “Memory for Proper Names: A Review.” Memory 1 (4): 249–63.
doi:10.1080/09658219308258237.
Cutfield, Sarah. 2011. “Demonstratives in Dalabon: A Language of Southwestern Arnhem Land”. PhD thesis. Melbourne:
Monash University.
Danziger, Eve. 2010. “Deixis, Gesture, and Cognition in Spatial Frame of Reference Typology.” Studies in Language 34 (1):
167–85. doi:10.1075/sl.34.1.16dan.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. “The Morphosyntax of Demonstratives in Synchrony and Diachrony.” Linguistic Typology 3: 1–49.
doi:10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.1.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2003. “Demonstratives: A Cross-Linguistic Typology.” Studies in Language 27 (1): 61–112.
Douglas, Wilfred H. 1964. An Introduction to the Western Desert Language. Vol. 4. Sydney: Oceania.
Downing, Pamela. 1996. “Proper Names as a Referential Option in English Conversation.” In Studies in Anaphora, 95–143.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enfield, N. J. 2003. “Demonstratives in Space and Intereaction: Data from Lao Speakers and Implications for Semantic
Analysis.” Language 79 (1): 82–117.
Enfield, N.J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Falkenberg, Johannes. 1962. Kin and Totem: Group Relations of Australian Aborigines in the Port Keats District. Oslo: Oslo
University Press.
Forshaw, William, Lucinda Davidson, Rachel Nordlinger, Gillian Wigglesworth, Barbara Kelly, and Joe Blythe. in press. “The
Acquisition of Murrinhpatha (Northern Australia).” In Handbook of Polysynthesis, edited by Michael Fortescue, Marianne
Mithun, and Nicholas Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaby, Alice. 2012. “The Thaayorre Think of Time Like They Talk of Space.” Frontiers in Psychology 3. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2012.00300.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2014. “Widening the Lens: What the Manual Modality Reveals about Language, Learning and
Cognition.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369 (1651): 20130295–20130295.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0295.
Green, Ian. 2003. “The Genetic Status of Murrinh-patha.” In The Non-Pama-Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia:
Comparative Studies of the Continent’s Most Linguistically Complex Region, edited by Nicholas Evans, 159–84. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics.
Green, Jennifer, and David P. Wilkins. 2014. “With or Without Speech: Arandic Sign Language from Central Australia.”
Australian Journal of Linguistics 34 (2): 234–61. doi:10.1080/07268602.2014.887407.
Hart, C.W.M. 1930. “Personal Names amongst the Tiwi.” Oceania 1: 280–90.
Haviland, John B. 1993. “Anchoring, Iconicity, and Orientation in Guugu Yimidhirr Pointing Gestures.” Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology 1: 3–45.
———. 1996. “Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, edited by John J. Gumperz and
Stephen C. Levinson, 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction:
Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, edited by N.J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 255–80. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
158
J. Blythe, et al.
———. 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language & Social
Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646684.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in
Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148779.
———. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiecence, Agency and Resistance in Response to Polar Questions.”
In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, edited by Jan Peter De Ruiter, 179–92. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John, and Andrew Roth. 1995. “Grammar and Institution: Questions and Questioning in the Broadcast News
Interview.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 28 (1): 1–60. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi2801_1.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. “Demonstratives in Narrative Discourse: A Taxonomy of Universal Uses.” In Studies in
Anaphora. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hoffmann, Dorothea. 2013. “Mapping Worlds: Frames of Reference in MalakMalak.” In Proceedings to the 39th Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. http://www.academia.edu/3796568/Mapping_Worlds_Frames_of_Reference_
in_MalakMalak.
Kendon, Adam. 2013. Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and Communicative Perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Academic Press New York.
Le Guen, Olivier. 2011. “Modes of Pointing to Existing Spaces and the Use of Frames of Reference.” Gesture 11 (3): 271–307.
doi:10.1075/gest.11.3.02leg.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Language and Cognition: The Cognitive Consequences of Spatial Description in Guugu Yimithirr.
Netherlands Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 1992.
———. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition : Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C., Penelope Brown, Eve Danziger, Lourdes De León, John B. Haviland, Eric Pederson, and Gunter Senft.
1992. “Man and Tree & Space Games.” In Space Stimuli Kit 1.2: November 1992, edited by Stephen C. Levinson,
7–14. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. http://fieldmanuals.mpi.nl/volumes/1992/man-treespace-games/.
Levinson, Stephen C., and David P. Wilkins, eds. 2006a. Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Vol. 6.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2006b. “The Background to the Study of the Language of Space.” In Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity, edited by Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins, 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Sotaro Kita, Daniel B.M. Haun, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2004. “Can Language Restructure
Cognition? The Case for Space.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (3): 108–14. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.
Mansfield, John. 2014. “Polysynthetic Sociolinguistics: The Language and Culture of Murrinh Patha Youth”. PhD thesis.
Canberra: ANU.
McNeill, David, ed. 2000. Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nash, David, and Jane Simpson. 1981. “‘No-Name’ in Central Australia.” In Papers from the Parasessions, edited by Carrie S.
Masek, 165–77. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010a. “Agreement in Murrinhpatha Serial Verbs.” In Selected Papers from the 2009 Conference of the
Australian Linguistic Society, Selected Papers from the 2009 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society:1–30. La
Trobe University.
———. 2010b. “Verbal Morphology in Murrinhpatha: Evidence for Templates.” Morphology 20: 321–41.
———. 2011. “Transitivity in Murrinhpatha.” Studies in Language 35 (3): 702–34.
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Patrick Caudal. 2012. “The Tense, Aspect and Modality System in Murrinhpatha.” Australian Journal of
Linguistics 32 (1): 73–113. doi:10.1080/07268602.2012.657754.
Pederson, Eric. 2003. “How Many Reference Frames?” In Spatial Cognition III: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, edited by
Christian Freksa, Wilfried Brauer, Christopher Habel, and Karl F Wender, 287–304. Springer.
Pederson, Eric, Eve Danziger, David Wilkins, Stephen C. Levinson, Sotaro Kita, and Gunter Senft. 1998. “Semantic Typology
and Spatial Conceptualization.” Language 74 (3): 557–89.
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation
and Their Interaction.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited by George Psathas, 15–21. New York:
Irvington.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Studies in Anaphora, edited by
Barbara A. Fox, 33:437–85. Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
———. 2007a. “Conveying Who You Are: The Presentation of Self, Strictly Speaking.” In Person Reference in Interaction:
Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, edited by N. J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 123–48. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
———. 2007b. Sequence Organization in Interaction: Volume 1: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening Up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327.
Pointing out directions in Murrinhpatha
159
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2006. “Sketch of a Jaminjung Grammar of Space.” In Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive
Diversity, edited by Stephen C. Levinson and David P. Wilkins, 63–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R. 1997. “Proper Names.” In Readings in the Philosophy of Language, 585–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Semenza, Carlo. 2006. “Retrieval Pathways for Common and Proper Names.” Cortex 42 (6): 884–91. doi:10.1016/
S0010-9452(08)70432-5.
Stanner, W.E.H. 1936. “Murinbata Kinship and Totemism.” Oceania 7 (2): 186–216.
———. 1937. “Aboriginal Modes of Address and Reference in the North-West of the Northern Territory.” Oceania 7 (3): 300–315.
Street, Chester S. 1980. “The Relationship of Verb Affixation and Clause Structure in Murinbata.” Papers in Australian
Linguistics no. 12: 83–113.
———. 1987. An Introduction to the Language and Culture of the Murrinhpatha. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics,
Australian Aborigines Branch.
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. “How Language Structures Space.” In Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research, and Application, edited by
Herbert L. Pick and Linda P. Acredolo, 225–82. New York: Plenum Press.
Walsh, Michael J. 1976. “The Murinypata Language of North West Australia”. PhD thesis. Canberra: Australian National
University.
———. 1987. “The Impersonal Verb Construction in Australian Languages.” In Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael
Halliday, I & II, edited by Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold, 425–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
———. 1993. “Classifying the World in an Aboriginal Language.” In Language and Culture in Aboriginal Australia, 107–22.
Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
———. 1996. “Vouns and Nerbs: A Category Squish in Murrinhpatha (northern Australia).” In Studies in Kimberley Languages
in Honour of Howard H. Coate, 227–52. München: Lincom Europa.
———. 1997. “Noun Classes, Nominal Classification and Generics in Murrinhpatha.” In Nominal Classification in Aboriginal
Australia, 255–92. Studies in Language Companion Series, v. 37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ward, Sr Theresa. 1983. The Peoples and Their Land around Wadeye: Murrinh Kanhi Ka Kardu I Da Putek Pigunu. Port Keats:
Wadeye Press.
Wilkins, David P. 1997. “Handsigns and Hyperpolysemy.” In Boundary Rider: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey O’Grady, edited by
Darrell T. Tryon and Michael J. Walsh, 413–44. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
———. 2002. “The Concept of Place among the Arrernte.” In The Land Is a Map: Placenames of Indigenous Origin in Australia,
edited by Luise Hercus, Flavia Hodges, and Jane Simpson. Canberra: Pandanus Books.
———. 2003. “Why Pointing with the Index Finger Is Not a Universal (in Sociocultural and Semiotic Terms).” In Pointing: Where
Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, edited by Sotaro Kita, 171–215. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.