Demonstrative systems are often assumed to primarily encode spatial distinctions (i.e., proximal vs. distal), a tendency known as the spatial bias (Levinson 2018). However, cross-linguistic research reveals that such systems may additionally reflect other spatial parameters (e.g., elevation, direction), perceptual factors (e.g., visibility) and intersubjective dynamics, such as the speaker’s assumption about whether the addressee is attending to the same referent. These findings reflect central theoretical debates: some authors argue that demonstratives are grounded in egocentric, bodily experience (e.g., Diessel and Coventry 2020), while others emphasize the role of social interaction (e.g., Peeters and Ozyurek 2016), or advocate for integrated models (Levinson 2018). 

This talk presents findings from ongoing research on Northern Alta, a Philippine language with a typologically rich demonstrative system. Drawing on a collaborative task involving native speakers and multimodal interactional data, we explore how demonstrative choice reflects both spatial and intersubjective parameters. While spatial factors such as reachability (i.e., whether referents are within or beyond arm’s reach) are relevant, our findings suggest that demonstrative use is also shaped by the speaker’s assumption about joint attention or shared reference. 

This study contributes to ongoing discussions about how intersubjective dynamics (that is, how speakers manage shared attention and shared knowledge), influence demonstrative reference and may play a central role in structuring demonstrative systems cross-linguistically. 

Diessel, H., & Coventry, K. R. (2020). Demonstratives in spatial language and social interaction: An interdisciplinary review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 555265.

Peeters, D., & Özyürek, A. (2016). This and that revisited: A social and multimodal approach to spatial demonstratives. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 222.

Levinson, S. C. (2018). Introduction: demonstratives: patterns in diversity. In Demonstratives in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1-42). Cambridge University Press.