4.3 Characteristics of the main uses of ‘dieser’
4.3.3 The recognitional use
Moving on with the domain-based typology of uses of dieser, I will present a further derived use in this section: the recognitional use in which dieser is always unstressed35. The term recognitional use goes back to Diessel (1999). It is, like all derived uses, characterized by the observation that its demonstrata are not standardly perceptible in the actual utterance situation and not obligatorily pointed out by a speaker demonstration. Still, dieser in the recognitional is argued to behave like a device of direct reference, as well. The relevant domain for the recognitional use is the (privately) shared knowledge between hearer and speaker in the actual world, in which the referent is anchored (Himmelmann 1996, 1997;
Diessel 1999; Ahrenholtz 2007).
(184) Du, was ist denn mit dieser Nachbarskatze passiert? (Die, die immer im Hof herumschlich.)
‘Do you kow what happened to that36 neighbour’s cat? (The one which used to sift through our backyard.)’
In (184) diese Nachbarskatze is not part of the actual utterance situation, it is not pointed out by a speaker demonstration and reference is not made to a previous discourse segment. In (184) diese Nachbarskatze is newly introduced into the discourse. However, the speaker refers to shared knowledge, i.e.
35 Another name for the recognitional use is anamnestic use (Himmelmann 1996, 1997).
36 Note that in the English translation the distal demonstrative that has to be used.
knowledge (s)he shares with the hearer, probably due to a common interactional history (in that they both saw the cat, talked about it, etc.). The speaker assumes that the hearer is familiar with the referent of the dieser-NP and that the referent is rooted in his private knowledge or memory.
The recognitional use can be described as introducing a discourse-new referent (remember that if dieser refers to a textual antecedent (i.e. a discourse old referent) we are dealing with the anaphoric use), which is assumed to be known to the hearer. It is thus hearer-old, in that the speaker assumes that the hearer is able to identify the referent due to shared private but not due to encyclopedic knowledge. If encyclopedic knowledge is used in order to identify the referent, the definite article is used:
(185) The pope orders a drink.
In the example below, the additional sentence in brackets is not required. It just illustrates how the speaker assumes that the hearer is familiar with the referent due to a private interactional history. The example in (186), without the follow-up sentence, would be a felicitous example of the recognitional use of dieser, as well:
(186) Ich habe mir endlich diese Jacke gekauft. (Die, über die ich schon letzte Woche mit dir sprach.)
‘I finally bought that jacket. (The one about which we already talked last week.)’
Diessel (1999: 105) notes that this use has not received the same attention in the literature, compared to the basic deictic and the anaphoric use. He states that several studies mention this use (Lakoff 1974; Chen 1990; Gundel et al. 1993), however, Himmelmann (1996, 1997) seems to be the first who systematically accounts for it. Himmelmann states that the recognitional use of demonstratives always has one component of meaning to it which can be paraphrased with tag questions like “remember?” or “you know what I mean?” (Himmelmann 1997:
60). I will show later that the attachment of these types of tag questions can be used as one test to demarcate the recognitional from the indefinite use, which cannot occur with tag questions of this type. The recognitional use thus seems to work like a reminder, reactivating privately shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer. Due to the observation that the knowledge state with respect to private knowledge of the hearer is relevant for the recognitional use, the recognitional use does, generally, often appear in questions:
(187) Wo ist denn diese Hängelampe (welche bei uns im Flur hing)?
‘Where is that hanging lamp (which used to be in our hallway)?’
The hearer assumes that the speaker is able to identify the referent of the demonstrative noun phrase, due to privately shared knowledge, which licenses the occurrence of dieser in questions. This is not possible with the indefinite use of dieser, since the speaker introduces referents which are completely new to the hearer. The speaker cannot ask the hearer about brand-new referents:
(188) *Do you rememberthisind lamp?
Himmelmann (1997: 62) notes that the recognitional is to be clearly distinguish from what he calls “abstract situative use” (this matches Hawkin’s 1978 “larger situation use”) of the definite article (as in the sun, the president of the U.S.A.). This use also deals with first-mention entities which are known to the hearer and are in that sense definite. He claims that these two uses are similar, but still different. They differ with respect to the type of knowledge which is involved:
the recognitional use relates to specific shared knowledge (Himmelmann (1996, 1997) also calls it “private knowledge”) between speaker and hearer, which exists (probably) due to common experiences, whereas the abstract situative use relates to general world knowledge. Depending on general world knowledge, the definites in the abstract situative use go along with a uniqueness condition. It is assumed to be part of the general world knowledge to know that there is only one sun and only one president of the United States. This enables the hearer then to uniquely identify the desired referent. Himmelmann (1996: 233) concludes as follows: “the kind of knowledge involved in the abstract familiar use of the definite article is considered to be generally shared among the members of a given speech community, whereas the recognitional use draws on specific ‘personalized or private’ knowledge that is assumed to be shared by the communicating parties due to a common interactional history or to supposedly shared experiences.”
Testing for indexicality
Being clear about the features of the recognitional use and about the special knowledge-domain in which its referents are to be found, I will now investigate its referential features. I will investigate if it shares its mode of reference with the basic deictic use. That is, I will check if it behaves like a means of indexical reference. This will be done by applying the two tests for indexicality, (i) the disquotation test and the (ii) scopal behavior test; as introduced in Chapter 2.
The disquotation test
Since the relevant domain for the recognitional use is the shared knowledge between hearer and speaker, information about shared knowledge has to be seen as a part of the original context of utterance C, being substantially different in C’.
In a new context C’ all the relevant situational features (included the interlocutors and linked to them their state of shared knowledge) must be assumed to have substantially changed. So, imagine C is a context in which Anna talks to her friend Sally in New York, whereas C’ is a context in which Sally talks to her
friends in Los Angeles, who only roughly know Anna and don’t know anything about her church:
(189) Anna in C: Ich war am Montag noch in dieserrec Kirche. (Die, über die wir am Sonntag noch sprachen.)
Anna in C: I was in thatrec church on Monday. (The one we talked about on Sunday.)
Sally in C’: *Anna sagte, sie war am Montag noch in dieserrec Kirche.
Sally in C’: *Anna said she was in thatrec church on Monday.
(190) Adjusted: Sally in C’: Anna sagte, sie war am Montag noch in einer Kirche.
Adjusted: Sally in C’: Anna said she was in a Church on Monday.
The use of dieserrec in C’ is unfelicitous, as diese Kirche does not relate to shared knowledge between Sally and her colleagues in C’, but to shared private knowledge between Anna and Sally in C. The shared knowledge, although, has to be shared between speaker and hearer in the recognitional use. This proves, that dieser, in its recognitional use behaves like an indexical expression as well. The adapted version of Sally’s disquotation in C’ involves the indefinite article, which is usually used in order to introduce a brand-new referent into the discourse (190).
Scopal behavior test:
In the same vein, the scopal behavior tests shows, that recognitional dieser exhibits the features of direct reference and thus behaves similar compared to deictic dieser. Recognitional dieser, as well, cannot be found to allow for co-varying readings if embedded under linguistic operators at all.
In (191) dieser Mathelehrer only refers to one single teacher in the actual world of hearer and speaker, i.e. exactly the one which the hearer is supposed to identify due to privately shared knowledge in the actual world of utterance. (191) has no reading which can be made true in a world w just in case that whoever is the current teacher in w makes friends with every kid in w and thus behaves like one would an indexical expression expect to behave, depending on the actual world of utterance.
In contrast to that, for the definite description dem Mathelehrer in (192), beneath referential readings, co-varying readings with respect to different worlds are licensed in that whoever happens to be teacher in world w makes friends with every child in w. The indefinite article in (193) allows for (among other readings) a prominent reading in which there is no particular teacher at all, it can never be considered to be inherently (directly) referential:
(191) Jedes Kind freundet sich mit diesem Mathelehrer an. (Du weißt schon, der, den wir auf dem Elternabend gesehen haben.)
‘Every child makes friends with that maths teacher. (You know who I mean, the one who we met at the parent-teacher-conference.)’
Direct reference: only one teacher, no co-variation-reading possible (192) Jedes Kind freundet sich mit dem Mathelehrer an.
‘Every child makes friends with the maths teacher.’
Possible reading: co-variation: different teachers for different children (193) Jedes Kind freundet sich mit einem Mathelehrer an.
‘Every child makes friends with a maths teacher.’
Possible reading: co-variation: different teachers for different children Recognitional dieser shows direct reference in these examples, not allowing for readings of co-variation, very much like deictic dieser.
Similarly, in the contexts with an intensional verb below, recognitional dieser in (194) refers rigidly to the very cook which is part of the interactional history of speaker and hearer in the actual world of utterance, whereas the definite article in (195) allows for co-variation in that it can denote various cooks, depending on who is the cook in the situation of evaluation. The indefinite article in (196) allows for a reading in which it does not refer to any particular cook at all.
(194) Maria will diesen Koch loben. (Du weißt schon, der der neulich für uns gekocht hat)
‘Mary wants to praise that cook. (You know who I mean, the one who cooked for us recently.)’
Direct reference: there is exactly one cook (195) Maria will (meistens) den Koch loben.
Maria (most often) wants to praise the cook.
Co-variation: possibly different cooks
(196) Maria will einen Koch loben. (Sie hat aber noch keinen kennen gelernt.) Mary wants to praise a cook. (She hasn’t met one yet).
Narrow scope reading possible
The referential behavior of recognitional dieser in these diagnostic contexts strongly reminds us of the one of deictic dieser and thus allows the conclusion that the recognitional use shares, as well, the core means of indexical (direct) reference with deictic dieser. To summarize, the following characteristics for the recognitional use can be listed:
Table 19:Main features of the recognitional use of dieser
Recognitional use Examples / Comments
Form Dieser N
Indexicality? yes Test 1: Disquotation test ✓
Test 2: Scopal behavior test ✓ Pointing gesture
required?
no Weißt du noch als wir letztens im Urlaub dieses afrikanische Nationalgericht *(pointing gesture) aßen?
‘Do you remember eating that African national dish in our holidays?’
Domain where referent is to be found
Shared common knowledge between hearer and speaker Adnominal /
pronominal ?
Only adnominal (the pronominal form is not felicitous due to purely pragmatic reasons)
Hey, ich hab gestern wieder diesen Straßenmusiker gesehen.
*Hey, ich hab gestern wieder diesen gesehen.
‘Hey, I’ve seen that street artist again.’
‘*Hey, I’ve seen that again.’
Discourse status of referent
Introduction of new referent in discourse Marking given or
new information for hearer?
Given Shared knowledge between hearer and speaker
Tests 1. No pointing gesture, no textual antecedent
2. “reminder” tag questions possible 3. Can occur in questions
To summarize, in this section I presented the characteristics of the recognitional use of dieser, showing that the relevant domain of reference is the shared private knowledge between speaker and hearer and that the feature of direct reference is shared with the basic deictic and the anaphoric use.