Anscombre Jean Claude ,and Ducrot Oswald. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue . Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.
Andersen Gisle ,and Fretheim Thorstein. 2000. Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ariel Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents . London: Routledge.
Asher Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Asher Nicholas ,and Lascarides Alex. 2003. Logics of Conversation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asher Nicholas. 2004. "Discourse topic". Theoretical Linguistics Vol 30: 161- 201.
Asher, Nicholas, Laurent Prévot and Laure Vieu. 2007. Setting the background in discourse. Discours1. Downloadable at
Blakemore Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance . Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore Diane. 1992. Understanding Utterances . Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosch Peter ,and Umbach Carla. 2007. "Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns". ZAS Papers in Linguistics Vol 48: 39- 51.
Briz-Gómez Antonio. 1998. El Español Coloquial en la Conversación: Esbozo de Pragmagramática . Barcelona: Ariel.
Casado Manuel. 1991. "Los operadores discursivos es decir, esto es, o seay a saberen español actual: valores de lengua y funciones textuales". Lingüística Española Actual Vol 13: 87- 116.
Cueto-Vallverdú Natalia ,and López-Bobo María J. . 2003. La Interjección: Semántica y Pragmática . Madrid: Arco Libros.
Diccionario de partículas discursivas del español [Online]. Downloadable at
Diessel Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Diessel Holger. 2006. "Demonstratives, joint attention and the emergence of grammar". Cognitive Linguistics Vol 17: 463- 489.
Eckardt Regine. 2004. "Particles and strategies". Sprache und Datenverarbeitung Vol 28: 79- 86.
Fintel, Kai von. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains . PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Grice Herbert Paul. , 1975. "Logic and conversation". In Cole P. ,and Morgan J. (eds.), Syntax & Semantics3, 41- 58. New York: Academic Press.
Gundel Jeanette K. ,, Hedberg Nancy ,and Zacharski Ron. 1993. "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse". Language Vol 69: 274- 307. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/416535
Gundel Jeanette ,, Hegarty Michael ,and Borthen Kaja. 2003. "Cognitive status, information structure and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities". Journal of Logic, Language and Information Vol 12: 281- 299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024102420659
Gutiérrez-Rexach Javier. 2006. "Discourse particles, quantification and multi-dimensional meaning". Sprache und Datenverarbeitung Vol 30: 35- 46.
Halliday Michael A.K. ,and Hasan Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.
Hawkins John. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness . London: Croom Helm.
Heim Irene , 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases . PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Higginbotham James. , 2003. "Competence with demonstratives". In Ham M. ,and Hamberg B. (eds.), Reflections and Replays: Essays on the Philosophy of Tyler Burge , 101- 115. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hopper Paul ,and Traugott Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ifantidou-Trouki Elly. 1993b. "Parentheticals and relevance". UCL Working Papers in Linguistics Vol 5: 192- 210.
Kadmon Nirit. 2000. Formal Pragmatics . Oxford: Blackwell.
Kaplan David. , 1989. "Demonstratives: an essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals". In Almog J. ,, Perry J. ,and Wettstein H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan , 481- 564. New York: Oxford University Press.
King Jeffrey. 1999. "Are complex ‘that’ phrases devices of direct reference?" Noûs Vol 33: 155- 182.
King Jeffrey. 2001. Complex Demonstratives . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kratzer Angelika. 1999. "Beyond ouchand oops: how descriptive and expressive meaning interact". Cornell Conference on Theories of Context Dependency . Downloadable at
Lewis David. 1979. "Score-keeping in a language game". Journal of Philosophical Logic Vol 8 : 339- 359.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. Unpublished ms. Downloadable at
Martín-Zorraquino María Antonia ,and Portolés-Lázaro José. , 1999. "Los marcadores del discurso". In Bosque I. ,and Demonte V. (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española , 4051- 4213. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.
May Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Padilla-Cruz Manuel. 2009a. "Might interjections encode concepts? More questions than answers". Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Vol 5: 241- 270.
Partee Barbara. , 1995. "Quantificational structures and compositionality". In Bach E. ,, Jelinek E. ,, Kratzer A. ,and Partee B. H. (eds.), Quantification in Natural Languages , 541- 601. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Perry John. 1993. The Problem of the Essential Indexical . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Portolés-Lázaro José. 1998. Marcadores del Discurso . Madrid: Ariel.
Potts Christopher. , 2003. "Expressive content as conventional implicature". In Kadowaki M. ,and Sawahara S. (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 33 , 303- 322. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Prince Ellen. , 1981. "Toward a taxonomy of given-new information". In Cole P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics , 223- 256. New York: Academic Press.
Recanati François. 1993. Direct Reference. From Language to Thought . Oxford: Blackwell.
Redeker Gisela. 1991. "Linguistic markers of discourse structure". Linguistics Vol 29: 1139- 1172.
Roberts Craige. 1996. "Information structure in discourse: towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. H. Yoon and A. Kathol (eds.)", OSU Working Papers in Linguistics Vol 49, 91- 136.
Roberts Craige. , 2002. "Demonstratives as definites". In van Deemter K. ,and Kibble R. (eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation , 89- 196. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Russell Bertrand. 1905. "On denoting". Mind Vol 56: 479- 493.
Schiffrin Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: Like, Well, Y’know . New York, NY: Garland.
Searle John R. 1969. Speech Acts . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soames Scott. 2002. Beyond Rigidity . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber Dan ,and Wilson Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition . Oxford: Blackwell.
Stenning Keith ,, Lascarides Alex ,and Calder Jo. 2006. Introduction to Cognition and Communication . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Szabolcsi. Anna. 1997. Ways of Scope Taking . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Torres-Sánchez María Ángeles. 2000. La Interjección . Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz.
Vieu Laure. , 2007. "On blocking: the rhetorical aspects of content-level discourse relations and their semantics". In Aurnague M. ,, Korta K. ,and Larrazábal J. M. (eds.), Language, Representation and Reasoning , 263- 282. Bilbao: University of The Basque Country Press.
Webber Bonnie Lynn. 1979. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora . New York, NY: Garland.
Zeevat Henk. , 2002. "Explaining presupposition triggers". In van Deemter K. ,and Kibble R. (eds.), Information Sharing , 61- 87. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Zeevat Henk. , 2004. "Particles: presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers". In Blutner R. ,and Zeevat H. (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics , 91- 111. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Zulaica-Hernández Iker ,and Gutiérrez-Rexach Javier. 2009. "Hacia una semántica computacional de las anáforas demostrativas". Linguamática Vol 1: 81- 90.
fn14 * In this paper we have focused on Peninsular Spanish. All the examples that appear in this study are natural examples from the Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual(CREA), which is accessible online at http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.htmland, to the best of our knowledge, all the analysed demonstrative discourse particles can be found across all varieties of modern Peninsular Spanish.
fn1 1 The status of interjections, such as English ohor Spanish ah, as discourse particles has been the subject of intense debate. While some authors have identified the functions of interjections with that of pragmatic markers ( Schiffrin, 1987; Montes, 1999) or even particles ( Zwicky, 1985), others have argued that only a small subset of interjections can be used for this function ( Ameka, 1992: 114). Generally speaking, it appears that interjections encode a particular type of procedural information. Thus, Wharton (2003)argues that interjections encode procedural information that may activate various attitudinal concepts or types of concepts (e.g. interrogative propositional attitudes, dissociative attitudes, attitudes involving delight, surprise, excitement, etc.) depending on the type of interjection involved. As Wharton puts it: “What a hearer does with the attitudinal or speech act information activated might vary in different situations. […] A hearer may use it to construct a higher-level explicature, […] might also lead to propositional embedding, though it may be that many interjections are primarily geared to suddenly perceived objects and events, and only by extension to propositions” ( Wharton, 2003:60). Another detailed study on interjections with a focus on Spanish can be found in Torres-Sánchez (2000), where she also offers a classification of interjections into categories and advocates for specific procedural meanings depending on the category involved.
fn2 2 Demonstratives are not necessarily accompanied by a pointing gesture. Most commonly, the pointing serves to single out the intended referent when other competing potential referents are present in the utterance situation or when reference is simply too vague or ambiguous. Even in deixis proper and when the referent is salient enough, use of a pointing gesture would be redundant. Although, by definition, demonstratives are pointers, there are uses of demonstratives where such “pointing” – if any – is not transparent. That is the case of demonstratives in discourse deictic/anaphoric uses when reference is transferred from the physical coordinates of the utterance context to the textual domain. Such pointing function has been characterized as a procedure encoding the cognitive status of the referring expression ( Gundel et al., 1993) or as a focus shift mechanism ( Gundel and Mulkern, 1998).
fn3 3 The particle eso sí/ esto síis characterized in the DPDE as a particle whose main function is to weaken a conclusion that may be inferred from a previous discourse segment. On the other hand, the role of the particle con eso y todo(and its variants con todo y con esoand con todo y eso) would be to present a contrary conclusion to one that may be inferred from the previous discourse. Finally, the particle esto es(lit. “this is”) is characterized by Casado as having a meaning akin to the particle o sea(“that is to say”).
fn4 4 In our opinion, the existence of the structural Contrastrelation does not preclude the hearer from inferring additional rhetorical relations between the propositions involved. In (8), for example, an Explanationor Causerelation is possible between the two propositions: having had a pleasant time in a theme park may be the cause for this person to be willing to come back as a tourist some time in the future.
fn5 5 In purely discourse cataphoric uses, demonstratives appear to have a presentational use that not only contributes to discourse cohesion via co-reference, but it may also contribute a rhetorical effect (technically, not a rhetorical relation in SDRT’s sense), namely, that of creating uncertainty via the utterance of the demonstrative and the subsequent introduction of the relevant presuppositional material.
fn6 6 Other approaches and refinements to the notion of discourse marker from different theoretical standpoints are, but do not exhaust, the following: Schiffrin, 1987; Blakemore, 1987, 1992; Redeker, 1990, 1991; Halliday and Hasan, 1976; Schourup, 1985.
fn7 7 See Diessel (1990) on the conceptual differences between discourse anaphora and discourse deixis.
fn8 8 In the Russellian view of direct reference ( Russell, 1905), the content of a proper name such as Johnor the content of an indexical such as heis just its referent. In other words, a singular term (name, pronoun, definite description, etc.) is directly referentialif and only if its content directly fixes its extension (its referent).
fn9 9 Spanish has a three-way demonstrative system: proximal este(“this”), medial ese(“that”) and distal aquel(“that”). As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, the closest equivalent to distal aquelin English (used to identify an object remote from both the speaker and the person spoken to) would be the old demonstrative yon, which is still used in some Northern English varieties.
fn10 10 Semantically, generalized quantifiers denote families of sets. A generalized quantifier can be represented using the logical expression Q(λx.P(x)), which is a true formula if and only if the set denoted by (λx.P(x)) belongs to the denotation of the quantifier. Thus, for example, that(λx.P(x)) will be considered a true formula if and only if the set denoted by (λx.P(x)) is a member of the denotation of the quantifier that.
fn11 11 An explicature is: “an explicitly communicated assumption … a combination of linguistically encoded and contextually inferred conceptual features” (Sperber and Wilson 1995: 182).
fn12 12 In Speech Act Theory ( Searle, 1969), expressivesare illocutionary speech acts in which a speaker conveys an emotional attitude towards the proposition expressed. We believe that the expressive component that we propose for our demonstrative particles could also be analyzed along the lines of Searle’s expressives.
fn13 13 See also Cueto-Vallverdú and López-Bobo (2003) and Padilla-Cruz (2009ab)on interjections and procedural meaning and on the difficulties to assign a core semantic meaning to interjections.