# Correlation between vowel backness and deictic proximity



## Dymn

The title is self-explanatory, but I'll provide some examples. My question is, is there any correlation between vowel backness and whether a given deictic is proximal or distal? The tendency would be that proximal deictics usually employ front vowels whereas distal deictics use back vowels.

For example:

English: _this - that_
German: _hier - da/dort _("here - there")
Catalan, French, Italian: _aquí - allà, ici - là, qui - la _("here - there")
Hungarian: _ez - az; itt - ott _("this - that"; "here - there")

Thanks


----------



## bearded

Hello
As far as Italian is concerned, I think that such a correlation does not exist.  In fact, we can as well say _qua _(instead of _qui_) and _lì _(instead of _là_) without significant changes of meaning.


----------



## Riverplatense

One more example would be Russian _здесь _(_zdec'_) ‹here› —but also _тут _(_tut_)— and _там _(_tam_) ‹there›. However, I'm pretty sure that there is no motivation, and I think that the number of examples is by far not enough to draw conclusions, the more so as there are exceptions like the one stated by bearded or German _da_, which in many contexts is used to express proximity (_bleib da!_ ‹stay here!›) or the fact that _allà_, _là_, _là _go back to Latin _illac_, which is the feminine singular ablative of _illic_ (due to an elliptic construction), so here the [a] is just a «coincidence». Besides, there are many opposite examples, like Greek εδώ (_edó_) ‹here› and εκεί (_ekeí_) [ɛˈki] ‹there›. And, of course, one always has to take sound shifts in mind, so a front vowel in 2018 can go back to a back vowel in 18, compare NOCTEM → _nuit _[nɥi] etc.


----------



## swindaff

Dymn said:


> My question is, is there any correlation between vowel backness and whether a given deictic is proximal or distal? The tendency would be that proximal deictics usually employ front vowels whereas distal deictics use back vowels.


I totally agree with you. I thought I was the only one to notice this.



bearded said:


> Hello
> As far as Italian is concerned, I think that such a correlation does not exist.  In fact, we can as well say _qua _(instead of _qui_) and _lì _(instead of _là_) without significant changes of meaning.


Not really, actually. I think it got definitely lost (maybe throughout the years), but in theory there is a diffence between _qui-qua _and _lì-là.

Qui _is closer to the speaker than _qua.
Là _is further to the speaker than _lì.
_
The difference is quite subtle, but it exists, although wee don't really pay attention to it and most people even ignore it.

So, I'd say we have this kind of correlation.
Another example, may be that we tend to associate vowel backness to size when generating diminutive and augmentative forms.
_Casa(_house)_ --> cas*i*na _(little house)_ --> cas*o*na (_big house)

This is just an hypothesis, but maybe, the correlation between vowel backness and deictic proximity derives from the "size" correlation I just wrote about. The shorter the physical distance between something and the speaker, the "backer" the vowel.


----------



## bearded

Al.ba said:


> _Là _is further to the speaker than _lì._


Hm, not in most cases. E.g. 'when the woman was killed, I was there' - _Quando la donna fu uccisa, io ero lì / ero là _(I can sense no difference).
And with _qui/qua_: 'what are you doing here?' - _Che cosa fai qui / qua? _(no difference).
Even between obsolete _costì/costà _there was no real difference.
Maybe there is a difference in some regional usages..?


----------



## anahiseri

I had never read about this. I'm checking Indonesian, and in fact:
disini  - here          disana - there
ini -  this               itu  - that


----------



## swindaff

bearded said:


> E.g. 'when the woman was killed, I was there' - _Quando la donna fu uccisa, io ero lì / ero là _(I can sense no difference).
> And with _qui/qua_: 'what are you doing here?' - _Che cosa fai qui / qua? _(no difference).


I agree that in everyday life there is no difference. I use them interchangeably as well.

But there is a "rule" (unknown? no longer observed? I guess we can agree upon the idea of a language as a changing/developing system), which is not connected to regional uses.
(source: Treccani): _qui avv. [lat. eccu(m) hīc] (radd. sint.). – 1. In questo luogo, in questo posto. Indica in genere luogo non molto discosto da chi parla (e talvolta anche da chi ascolta) e con più esattezza dell’avv. qua
là avv. [lat. ĭllāc ‹illàk›]. – 1. In quel luogo. Indica in genere luogo distante da chi parla e da chi ascolta ma con minore determinatezza dell’avv. lì
_
(source: affrescoitaliano.it - not as authoritative as Treccani, but...) _leggendo tutti gli esempi e confrontandoli a uno a uno, mi viene spontaneo da dire che “qua” è quasi un dintorno di “qui”, anche se entrambi indicano vicinanza a chi parla. Faccio un esempio: “che freddo che fa qui” (magari vicino a una finestra piena di spifferi), “che freddo che fa qua” (in questa stanza, cucina, soggiorno, ecc.).
_
There are just a few examples of what pops out if you try to google this.

So:
'when the woman was killed, I was there' - _Quando la donna fu uccisa, io ero lì *(= e.g. right in that place; I may have witnessed the crime)* / ero là *(e.g. I was in that area, in a very general sense.).*
'what are you doing here?' - Che cosa fai qui *(next to me)* / qua? *(in this room)*_


----------



## anahiseri

And in fact, in Chinese too (piyyin)
"here"  is *zheli*
"there" is *nali*
I'm not sure that the vowel transcribed by piyyin* e * is fronted,
but* a  *is like "European a"


----------



## anahiseri

Riverplatense said:


> exceptions like the one stated by bearded or German _da_, which in many contexts is used to express proximity (_bleib da!_ ‹stay here!›)



I'm not sure this is an  exception. 
*da* in this context expresses *proximity to the listener*.
Besides, you have "da" and "dort" for "there"
and only "hier" for "here"


----------



## anahiseri

Counterexamples abound in Spanish, however:
here      aquí = acá
there     allí  = allá
and no correlation with demonstrative pronouns


----------



## swindaff

anahiseri said:


> here aquí = acá
> there allí = allá


When I lived in Spain, I was told that aquí and acá are slightly different (just like qui and qua in Italian), as acá is less precise than aquì. 
For example, "Ven aquì!" means that I want someone to come where I am, by my side, whereas "Ven acá" simply means "come closer", but not necessarily next to me. 
What do you think about these implications?


----------



## anahiseri

I must admit I never use *acá*. I think it's more South American.


----------



## swindaff

anahiseri said:


> I think it's more South American.


Probably yes. I was told that by someone who was from Colombia or had lived there for a long time (I can't remember).


----------



## Dymn

_Acá _is not that used in Spain, maybe except in some fixed sentences like _ven p'acá_ "come here!", or regionally.

Spanish (at least in Spain) uses a three-way contrast between _aquí, ahí _and _allí/allá._ I think _allí _is more common in Spain. In Catalan there's a two-way contrast between _aquí _and _allí/allà_, and I think _allà _is more common, unlike Spanish.

Italian does have the pairs _qui/qua _and _lì/là_, but aren't _qui _and _là_ the most common? If so (at least it's the case for Catalan and French), wouldn't it reinforce my point that the distal deictic tends towards a back vowel whereas the proximal one prefers a front vowel?



Al.ba said:


> This is just an hypothesis, but maybe, the correlation between vowel backness and deictic proximity derives from the "size" correlation I just wrote about. The shorter the physical distance between something and the speaker, the "backer" the vowel.


Thanks for your comment Alba 

I do think there is some sort of relation. I had read about backness correlating with perception of size but never about distance. I'm glad I'm not the only one either!


----------



## swindaff

Dymn said:


> Italian does have the pairs _qui/qua _and _lì/là_, but aren't _qui _and _là_ the most common? If so (at least it's the case for Catalan and French), wouldn't it reinforce my point that the distal deictic tends towards a back vowel whereas the proximal one prefers a front vowel?


Well, honestly I couldn't tell which ones are the most common between qui/qua and lì/là... But considering what the theory tells (despite not reflecting what actually happens in everyday conversations), I still believe your point is perfectly fine, even in Italian.

Thank you for those clarifications about Spanish usage of acà!


----------



## jimquk

My very limited Farsi supports the correlation: 
this = in; that = aan, colloquially un. 
Similarly, injaa = here; aanjaa, unjaa = there.


----------



## bearded

No such distinction in Arabic:
here = _hunaa_
there = _hunaaka._


----------



## AndrasBP

I'm learning *Georgian *and it's hard for me to remember that "*here - there*" is "*ak - ik*". It sounds like it's reversed Hungarian (itt - ott).
But what do you expect from a language where "mama" means "father"?


----------



## OBrasilo

Japanese does not support the correlation: _koko_ (here) - _soko_ (there) - _asoko_ (there yonder).
However, Proto-Japonic: _*i-_ - _*ku-_ - _*su-_ (there was a positional shift later), which is not th at different from Korean.
Neither does Slovenian: _tu_ or _tukaj_ (here) - _tam_ or _tamkaj_ (there).
Nor BCSM languages: _ovd(j)e_ (here) - _tamo_ (there).
Nor Polish: _tutaj_ - _tam_.
English: _here_ - _there_, but: Old English _hēr_ - _þēr,_ _þǣr_, _þār_.
So there might have been some correlation in Proto-Japonic and Old English.
As for Romance language,


----------



## Sardokan1.0

bearded said:


> Hm, not in most cases. E.g. 'when the woman was killed, I was there' - _Quando la donna fu uccisa, io ero lì / ero là _(I can sense no difference).
> And with _qui/qua_: 'what are you doing here?' - _Che cosa fai qui / qua? _(no difference).
> Even between obsolete _costì/costà _there was no real difference.
> Maybe there is a difference in some regional usages..?



Also in Sardinian there are various ways to translate lì / là; and there are subtle differences in their meaning, with different degrees of distance.

*Here *= _in hoche / in hoghe_ (Latin "in hoc loco -> in hoc -> in hoce"; classical pronunciation "in hoke")
*There (farther)* = _in hie_ (Latin "in hice")
*There (a lot farther)* = _addáe_ (similar to Spanish "allá")
*There (nearer)* = _hincùe _(Latin "hinc ubi -> hinc ube -> hinc ue"; the changes from I to E, and loss of intervocalic B are documented in the evolution from Latin to Sardinian)
*There (right there, but at a certain distance)* = _in cudd'áe_ | formed by In + Cuddu (that) + Addáe


_*When the woman was killed, I was there* = Quando la donna fu uccisa, io ero lì / ero là 

Cando sa femina est istada morta deo fio *in hie* (I was there but not near her)
Cando sa femina est istada morta deo fio *addáe *(I was there but far from her)
Cando sa femina est istada morta deo fio *hincùe *(I was there near her)
Cando sa femina est istada morta deo fio *in cudd'àe *(I was right there but at a certain distance from her)
_
Instead about "here" there is no difference like the Italian qui/qua, but just different pronunciations according to which variant of Sardinian you are speaking.

_*In hoche* (Nuorese, central-eastern Sardinia) *In hoghe* (Logudorese, central-northern Sardinia) *Innhoi *(Campidanese, southern Sardinia)_

*What are you doing here?* = _Che cosa fai qui / qua?

Ite bi faches *in hoche*? or Ite bi ses fachende *in hoche*? (Nuorese)
Ite bi faghes *in hoghe*? or Ite bi ses fattende *in hoghe*? (Logudorese)
Ita ci fais *innhoi*? or Ita ci ses fendi *innhoi*? (Campidanese)_


----------



## Awwal12

Riverplatense said:


> One more example would be Russian _здесь _(_zdec'_) ‹here› —but also _тут _(_tut_)— and _там _(_tam_) ‹there›.


Don't forget the demonstratives étot (this, sg. masc.) and tót (that, sg. masc.).

P.S. However, vot vs. von don't look supportive (even the both consonants are dental).
Really, what this hypothesis needs the most is accurate statistics.


----------

