2.4 Anaphors
2.4.1 The demonstratives this and that
We normally think of demonstratives (like this and that) as picking out an individual or some other entity which is made salient in the context, usually by nonlinguistic means.
(30) [After unlocking the door, Xander leads a friend into his apartment.] Well, this is my place.
(31) [Kay finds her favorite guitar pick in her jacket pocket.] I was wondering where this went.
(32) [At a school soccer game, Christina points at a child who’s just scored.] That’s my son!
(33) [Cedric sees Kelly reading a rare first edition Austen novel.] I can’t imagine where she found that.
In (30), the anaphor this refers to the place that has been raised to salience by being newly available to the interlocutors. In (31), this refers to Kay’s guitar pick, raised to salience by having just been found. In (32), the anaphor that refers to the child who had just made himself relatively salient by scoring a goal. In (33), that refers to the rare Austen novel which Cedric sees Kelly reading, salient (at least to Cedric) due to its rarity.
In addition to picking out salient individuals in the context, English uses its singular demonstratives to anaphorically refer to propositional discourse referents.
(34) A: Did you hear? Kyle won the race! B: a. This I know.
b. I know this. c. That I know. d. I know that.
The plural demonstratives these and those, however, cannot be used as propositional anaphors; contrast (34) with (35).
(35) A: Did you hear? Kyle won the race! B: a. # These I know.
b. # I know these. c. # Those I know. d. # I know those.
Even when there are multiple propositions being discussed, as in (36), the plural demon- stratives are infelicitous.
(36) [Farah challenges Jeremy and Stu to tell her something about whales that she doesn’t already know.]
Jeremy: Blue whales are pregnant for 10–12 months.
Stu: You can tell how old a whale is by counting the rings in its earwax. Farah: a. # These I know.
b. # I know these. c. # Those I know. d. # I know those.
These plural demonstratives can be felicitous in this context with some help, as in (2.4.1), but the addition of are things indicate that we’re no longer dealing with propositional anaphora; instead, this is individual anaphora, with things (or, equally, facts) performing an ‘individuating’ function, that is, giving us individual-type arguments.17
17These are individuals with propositional content; see Moulton 2015 and discussion in the previous
(360) Farah: a. These are things I know. b. I know these things.
c. Those are things I know. d. I know those things.
The singular this and that, though, remain felicitous even when referring to (plural complexes of) multiple propositions, as in (37).
(37) [Farah challenges Jeremy and Stu to tell her something about whales that she doesn’t already know.]
Jeremy: Blue whales are pregnant for 10–12 months.
Stu: You can tell how old a whale is by counting the rings in its earwax. Farah: a. This I know.
b. I know this. c. That I know. d. I know that.
Up to this point, I have discussed the demonstratives this and that as though they were monolithic; and, indeed, they have been described as such: Webber 1988 argues that the two are interchangeable, differing only in a speaker’s “psychological distance” to the referent. However, the two demonstratives do differ in use. In particular, the proximal this allows for cataphoric uses—that is, forward-looking reference to antecedents not yet introduced—where the distal that does not. Consider the utterances in the context of (38).
(38) [Discussing who was at the party last week; Erik hasn’t yet been mentioned.] a. i. This is what I was told: Erik was there.
ii. # That is what I was told: Erik was there. b. i. I was told this: Erik was there.
ii. # I was told that: Erik was there.
c. i. Erik was there. This is what I was told (by Joanna). ii. Erik was there. That is what I was told (by Joanna). d. i. Erik was there. I was told this (by Joanna).
ii. Erik was there. I was told that (by Joanna).
The examples in (38a)–(38b) are cataphoric, in that the antecedent—Erik was there—is not yet introduced at the time the anaphor is uttered. In these cases, this is acceptable, but that leads the sentences to be judged as infelicitous. The sentences in (38c)–(38d), on the other hand, are anaphoric (in the strict arrangement sense) in that the antecedent occurs before the anaphor (here, a demonstrative) doing the referring. In these cases, both this and that are acceptable. So where this can be used for both anaphoric and cataphoric uses, that is strictly for anaphoric—that is, backwards-looking—use.
One way that we can understand this distinction is by looking at how people tend to use this and that, even in contexts where both would perhaps be licit. Lord & Dahlgren 1997 found that the proximal this is more often used to refer to discourse referents18which
are considered topical to a discourse, where that is more often used with discourse ref- erents which are considered peripheral. If this generalizes, then we might explain the behavior in (38) as a consequence of the more peripheral nature of that, which as a result cannot be used to introduce new topics into the discourse. That said, Lord & Dahlgren
18Lord & Dahlgren 1997 looks at anaphora to all types of discourse referents, including individuals,
1997 suggests that those results may be genre-dependent, so there may be more work needed in order to explain the incompatibility of that with cataphoric uses.
It seems, then, that the proximal demonstrative, this, is in some sense the more general ‘all-purpose’ anaphor of the two demonstratives, where the distal that is reserved for truly anaphoric anaphoric uses. Given this all-purpose/specific dichotomy, we might expect that for some speakers the anaphoric (in the spatial sense) use of this would be somewhat marked (although still acceptable), considering that the word that is equally available and more specific to the task as a possible competitor; and this is precisely the case. Some speakers prefer (38cii) over (38ci), and (38dii) over (38di), for example. This is in line with a ‘competition of forms’ story for words which are otherwise interchangeable, as they are in a backward-looking anaphoric use.