Time frame as a determinant of accessibility of anaphoric demonstratives in Classical Arabic

Ariel, M., 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 65-87.10.1017/S0022226700011567Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, M., 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, M., 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 189–238.10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.189Search in Google Scholar

Ariel, M., 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In: T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord and W. Spooren, eds., Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–87.10.1075/hcp.8.04ariSearch in Google Scholar

Botley, S. and McEnery, T. 2000. Discourse anaphora: The need for synthesis. In: S. Botley and T. McEnery, eds., Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1-39.10.1075/scl.3.01botSearch in Google Scholar

Botley, S. and Mcenery, T., 2001. Proximal and distal demonstratives: A corpus-based study. Journal of English Linguistics, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 214-233.10.1177/00754240122005341Search in Google Scholar

Botley, S., 2006. Indirect anaphora: Testing the limits of corpus-based linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 11, no.1, pp. 73-112.10.1075/ijcl.11.1.04botSearch in Google Scholar

Clancy, P., 1980. Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In: W. Chafe, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 127-201.Search in Google Scholar

Cornish, F., 2008. How indexicals function in texts: Discourse, text, and one neo-Gricean account of indexical reference. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 997-1018.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.006Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Diessel, H., 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.42Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, H., 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 463-489.10.1515/COG.2006.015Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Diver, W., 1984. The grammar of modern English (Textbook Linguistics G6801). Unpublished work.Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, R., 2003. Demonstratives: Cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language, vol. 27, pp. 61-112.10.1075/sl.27.1.04dixSearch in Google Scholar

Ehlich, K., 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same, similar or different? In: R. Jarvella and W. Klein, eds., Speech, place and action. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 315-338.Search in Google Scholar

Francis, G., 1994. Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In: M. Coulthard, ed., Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 83-101.Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, M., 1991. Comprehending conceptual anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 81-105.10.1080/01690969108406939Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Givon, T., 1983. Topic continuity in English. In: T. Givon and Ute Language Program, eds., Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 43-93.10.1075/tsl.3.02hinSearch in Google Scholar

Gundel, J., K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R., 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 274–307.10.2307/416535Search in Google Scholar

Gundel, J., K., 2010. Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy Perspective, International Review of Pragmatics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 148-168.10.1163/187731010X528322Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K., and Hasan, R., 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Hanks, W., 2005. Explorations in the deictic field. Current Anthropology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 191-220.10.1086/427120Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Hasselbach, R., 2007. Demonstratives in Semitic. Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1-27.Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, N. P., 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. In B. Fox, ed., Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 205-54.10.1075/tsl.33.08himSearch in Google Scholar

Jarbou, S., 2010. Accessibility vs. physical proximity: An analysis of exophoric demonstrative practice in Spoken Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 3078-3097.10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.014Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Jarbou, S., 2012. Medial deictic demonstratives in Arabic: Fact or fallacy. Pragmatics, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 103-118.10.1075/prag.22.1.04jarSearch in Google Scholar

Jarbou, S. and Migdady, F., 2012. Testing the limits of anaphoric distance in Classical Arabic: A corpus-based study. Research in Language, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 423-444.10.2478/v10015-012-0003-ySearch in Google Scholar

Jarbou, S., 2017. The Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: The Case of the Singular Feminine Demonstrative in Jordanian Arabic. East-European Journal of Psycholinguistics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 63-75.10.29038/eejpl.2017.4.1.jarSearch in Google Scholar

Kirsner, R., 1990. From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurian views of the modern Dutch demonstratives. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn and R. A. Geiger, eds., Conceptualizations and mental processing in language: A Collection of Papers from the Duisburg Symposium on Cognitive Linguistics, April, 1989. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 81-114.Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 697-720.10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Lakoff, R., 1974. Remarks on this and that. Papers from the Regional Meetings of Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. 10, pp. 345-356.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Lyons, J., 1978. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Manning, P., 2001. On social deixis. Anthropological Linguistics, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 54-100.Search in Google Scholar

Marchello-Nizia, C., 2005. Deixis and subjectivity: The semantics of demonstratives in Old French (9th–12th Century). Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, no.1, pp. 43-68.10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.008Search in Google Scholar

Owens, J., 2006. A Linguistic history of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290826.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Piwek, P., Jan Beun, R. and Cremers, A., 2008. ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ in language and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 694-718.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.001Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Safwat, A., (comp.) 1933. Jamaharat Khotab Al-Arab ‘Collection of the public speeches/sermons of the Arabs’, vol. 1. Beirut: Almaktaba Al3ilmiya.Search in Google Scholar

Sidner, C., 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. In: M. Brady and R. Berwick, eds., Computational models of discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 267-330.Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, S., 2002. This, that, and it in Spoken American English: A demonstrative system of gradient focus. Language Sciences, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 131-152.10.1016/S0388-0001(01)00012-2Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

Stirling, L., 2001.The Multifunctionality of anaphoric expressions: A typological perspective. Australian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 7-23.10.1080/07268600120042435Search in Google Scholar

Taboada, M., 2008. Reference, centers, and transitions in Spoken Spanish. In: J. K. Gundel and N. Hedberg, eds., Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-215.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331639.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Walker, M. A., Joshi, A. K., and Prince, E. F., eds., 1998. Centering theory in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar