Gestural grammar

Abstract

We argue that some properties of sign language grammar have counterparts in non-signers’ intuitions about gestures, including ones that are probably very uncommon. Thus despite the intrinsic limitations of gestures compared to full-fledged sign languages, they might access some of the same rules. While gesture research often focuses on co-speech gestures, we investigate pro-speech gestures, which fully replace spoken words and thus often make an at-issue semantic contribution, like signs. We argue that gestural loci can emulate several properties of sign language loci (= positions in signing space that realize discourse referents): there can be an arbitrary number of them, with a distinction between speaker-, addressee- and third person-denoting loci. They may be free or bound, and they may be used to realize ‘donkey’ anaphora. Some gestural verbs include loci in their realization, and for this reason they resemble some ‘agreement verbs’ found in sign language (Schlenker and Chemla 2018). As in sign language, gestural loci can have rich iconic uses, with high loci used for tall individuals. Turning to plurality, we argue that repetition-based gestural nouns replicate several properties of repetition-based plurals in ASL (Schlenker and Lamberton 2019): unpunctuated repetitions provide vague information about quantities, punctuated repetitions are often semantically precise, and rich iconic information can be provided in both cases depending on the arrangement of the repetitions, an observation that extends to some mass terms. We further suggest that gestural verbs can give rise to repetition-based pluractional readings, as their sign language counterparts (Kuhn 2015a, 2015b; Kuhn and Aristodemo 2017). Following Strickland et al. (2015), we further argue that a distinction between telic and atelic sign language verbs, involving the existence of sharp boundaries, can be replicated with gestural verbs. Finally, turning to attitude and action reports, we suggest (following in part Lillo-Martin 2012) that Role Shift, which serves to adopt another agent’s perspective in sign language, has gestural counterparts. (An Appendix discusses possible gestural counterparts of ‘Locative Shift,’ a sign language operation in which one may co-opt a location-denoting locus to refer to an individual found at that location.)

Appendices

Appendix I: Transcription conventions

❑ Sign language transcription conventions

In the following, sign language sentences are glossed in capital letters, as is standard. Expressions of the form WORD–i, WORD_i and […EXPRESSION…]_i indicate that the relevant expression is associated with the locus (= position in signing space) i. A suffixed locus, as in WORD–i, indicates that the association is effected by modulating the sign in such a way that it points towards locus i (this is different from the addition of a pointing sign IX-i to a word); a subscripted locus, as in WORD_i or […EXPRESSION…]_i, indicates that the relevant expression is signed in position i. Locus names are assigned from right to left from the signer’s perspective; thus when loci a, b, c are mentioned, a appears on the signer’s right, c on the left, and b somewhere in between. IX (for ‘index’) is a pointing sign towards a locus, while POSS is possessive; they are glossed as IX-i and POSS-i if they point towards (or ‘index’) locus i; the numbers 1 and 2 correspond to the position of the signer and addressee respectively. IX-i is a standard way of realizing a pronoun corresponding to locus i, but it can also serve to establish rather than to retrieve one. Agreement verbs include loci in their realization—for instance, the verb a-ASK-1 starts out from the locus a and targets the first person locus 1; it means that the third person individual denoted by a asks something to the signer. IX-arc-i refers to a plural pronoun indexing locus i, as it involves an arc motion towards i rather than a simple pointing sign.

The suffix -rep is used for unpunctuated repetitions, and in such cases -rep3, -rep4, -rep≥ 4, -rep5 … indicate that there are 3, 4, at least 4, 5, … iterations. When relevant, we add a subscript indicating the shape of the repetition, e.g. -rep3_horizontal for a horizontal repetition (whether in a straight line or as horizontal arc), -rep3_triangle for a triangular-shaped repetition. The suffix -cont is used for continuous repetitions, and subscripts may be used as well to indicate the shape of the movement, such as -cont_horizontal or -cont_triangle. Punctuated repetitions of an expression WORD are encoded as [WORD WORD WORD] if they involve three iterations of that expression; [WORD WORD WORD]_horizontal and [WORD WORD WORD]_triangle provide information about the shape of the repetition.

Unless otherwise noted, non-manuals are not transcribed. An exception is when they appeared in the original publications from which the sentences are cited. If so, $\hat{\ }$ above a word or expression indicates that it was realized with raised eyebrows. Further conventions are introduced in the text as they become relevant.

❑ Spoken language transcription conventions

Glossing conventions for gestures were chosen to be reminiscent of sign language: here too, we used capital letters to gloss elements that are produced manually. This choice should definitely not suggest that signs are gestures or conversely.³⁹

For legibility, we use a non-standard font to transcribe gestures. A gesture that co-occurs with a spoken word (= a co-speech gesture) is written in capital letters or as a picture (or both) preceding the expression it modifies (in some cases, we have added a link to a video to illustrate some gestures). The modified spoken expression will be boldfaced, and enclosed in square brackets if it contains several words.

Examples:	John punished his enemy.
	John _punished his enemy.
	John punished his enemy.

A gesture that replaces a spoken word (= a pro-speech gesture) is written in capital letters or as a picture, or both.

Examples:	My enemy, I will .
	My enemy, I will _ .
	My enemy, I will .

As in sign language, pointing gestures are alphabetized from the dominant to the non-dominant side from the speaker’s perspective.⁴⁰- encodes pointing with a finger towards position a, while -- encodes pointing with an open hand, palm up, towards position a. A gestural verb involving slapping was glossed as - if it was realized towards the addressee, and as - if it was realized towards a third person position—which we’ll also call ‘locus’ for terminological simplicity. Refining the notation, we will write (-) if we think that this form is both a second person and a neutral form, usable in all persons. We will use the notation - to refer to pointing towards gestural locus a.

Appendix II: Locative shift in signs and in gestures

This Appendix is devoted to a puzzling property of ASL (and LSF): in some cases, a location-denoting locus can be co-opted to refer to an individual found at that location. We summarize the main findings and ask whether they extend to gestural loci. As we will see, judgments in our survey are variable across consultants, and an experimental investigation might be called for.⁴¹

❑ Basic Locative Shift in sign language

In ASL (and LSF), one may sometimes re-use a locus initially associated with a spatial location to denote an individual found at that location (Padden 1988; van Hoek 1992; Emmorey 2002; Emmorey and Falgier 2004; Schlenker 2013, 2018d). This phenomenon, sometimes called ‘Locative Shift,’ is illustrated in (67). In (67)a(i), locus b, associated with JOHN, appears as the object agreement marker of HELP, whereas in (67)a(ii) loci a and c, associated with FRENCH CITY and AMERICAN CITY respectively, are used to refer to John-in-the-French-city and John-in-the-American-city. The latter sentence exemplifies Locative Shift, which in this case is preferred (in other examples, there is optionality). The operation is constrained, however: indexical loci (here illustrated with a second person locus) usually do not like to undergo Locative Shift, as illustrated in (67)b(ii).

• (67) a. JOHN IX-b WORK [IX-a FRENCH CITY]_a SAME WORK [IX-c AMERICA CITY]_c.

  ‘John does business in a French city and he does business in an American city.

  (i) No Locative Shift

  ^4.2 IX-a IX-1 1-HELP-b. IX-c IX-1 NOT 1-HELP-b.

  (ii) Locative Shift

  ⁶ JOHN IX-b WORK [IX-a FRENCH CITY]_a SAME WORK [IX-c AMERICA CITY]_c.

  IX-a IX-1 1-HELP-a. IX-c IX-1 NOT 1-HELP-c.

  There [= in the French city] I help him. There [= in the American city] I don’t help him.’

  b. IX-2 WORK [IX-a FRENCH CITY]_a SAME IX-2 WORK [IX-c AMERICA CITY]_c.

  ‘You do business in a French city and you do business in an American city.’

  (i) No Locative Shift

  ^6.3 IX-a IX-1 1-HELP-2. IX-c IX-1 NOT 1-HELP-2.

  There [= in the French city] I help you. There [= in the American city] I don’t help you.’

  (ii) Locative Shift

  ^2.3 IX-a IX-1 1-HELP-a. IX-c IX-1 NOT 1-HELP-c.

  (ASL, 8, 1; 3 judgments; Schlenker 2011c)

❑ Basic Locative Shift in gestures

A basic case of Locative Shift with pro-speech gestures is illustrated in (68)c: instead of pointing towards the gestural locus introduced with John, the speaker points towards the gestural locus introduced with New York, but to refer to John-in-New York, so to speak.

• (68) Since --John can’t seem to work/get along with --you, I’ll/I am going to have him transferred to --New York. And later, if I need to downsize, you know who I’ll fire?⁴²

  a. ^6.3-. (= the addressee)

  b. ^4.7-. (= John)

  c. ^4.3-. (= John)

  (Video 3991 https://youtu.be/j6lerTXyde8)

• (69) Acceptability ratings for (68)

  Video 3991	a.	b.	c.
  Consultant 1	5	2	5
  Consultant 2	7	6	1
  Consultant 3	7	6	7

Averages obscure some of the patterns in this case: Consultant 1 obligatorily applies Locative Shift, Consultant 2 prohibits it, Consultant 3 allows it, as seen by the scores in (69).

When it is denied that John will be in New York, pointing towards the gestural locus associated with New York to refer to John entirely fails (for all consultants), as seen in (70).

• (70) Since --John can’t seem to work with --you, I won’t have him transferred to --New York. And if later I need/I later⁴³ need to downsize, you know who I’ll fire?

  a. ^6.3-. (= the addressee)

  b. ^6.3-. (= John)

  c. ¹-.

  (Video 3993 https://youtu.be/i1WfHT0Vx28)

Do we replicate in gestures the sign language finding that second person loci resist Locative Shift? The lower score in (7)c suggests that this is indeed the case, but due to the complexity of the ratings in the baseline in (69), we must discuss individual judgments, provided in (72).

• (71) Since --you can’t seem to work with --John, I’ll have you transferred to --New York. And if later I need to downsize, you know who I’ll fire?

  a. ^6.5-. (= the addressee)

  b. ^6.3-. (= John)

  c. ^3.8-. (= the addressee (?))

  (Video 3997 https://youtu.be/cGj_sT78v_8)

• (72) Acceptability ratings for (71)

  Video 3997	a.	b.	c.
  Consultant 1	5.5	5	4.5
  Consultant 2	7	7	1
  Consultant 3	7	7	6

Let us look at the individual scores for (71)c. Consultant 1, who obligatorily applied Locative Shift in (69), allows for the non-locative-shifted option in (71)a, and slightly disprefers applying Locative Shift to it (score: 4.5). Consultant 2 prohibited Locative Shift in (69) and continues to prohibit it in this case (score: 1). From the perspective of the sign language prohibition against locative-shifted indexical pronouns, it is surprising that Consultant 3 accepts Locative Shift (score: 6). Still, their pattern of preference is reversed: Consultant 3 preferred to apply Locative Shift to third person pointing in (69) (scores: 7 with Locative Shift, 6 without), whereas with second person pointing, Consultant 3 prefers not to apply Locative Shift (scores: 6 with Locative Shift, 7 without).

We conclude that (i) Locative Shift has a counterpart with gestural loci, but (ii) it’s not clear whether gestural Locative Shift can apply to indexical pronouns or, as argued for ASL, is preferably avoided in such cases. Experimental work would be helpful in this area.

❑ Theoretical consequences

There are two facts to be explained with respect to the sign language data. First, (i) why can location-denoting loci be co-opted to denote individuals found at these locations? Second, (ii) why is this operation degraded when the speaker or addressee (and possibly other deictic elements) are denoted? The first question arises in our gestural data, the second question might or might not.

The question in (i) was answered in Schlenker (2018d), by way of the hypothesis in (73). In a nutshell, it states that a locus a denoting an individual s(a) and a locus b denoting a location (or more generally a situation) s(b) can be combined to form a complex expression $a ^{b}$ which (i) denotes the stage of individual s(a) found in situation s(b), and (ii) is spelled out as b. The key in this analysis is that locative-shifted loci have more fine-grained meanings than standard loci and denote individuals at situations rather than just individuals or just situations.

• (73) Hypothesis about Locative Shift (Schlenker 2018d)

  a. Syntax

  If a locus adenotes an individual s(a) and a locus b denotes a spatial, temporal or modal situation s(b), then under some pragmatic conditions, the locus b can also spell out the complex expression $a ^{b}$.

  b. Semantics

  Evaluated under an assignment s, $a ^{b}$ denotes the stage of individual s(a) found in situation s(b).

Turning to the question in (ii), its answer might lie in the observation, made in connection with (9)a, that there is a strong preference in sign language and gestures alike to refer to elements that are present in the context by pointing at them (but see Schlenker 2018d for further discussion). This same principle might explain why one cannot easily introduce/retrieve an arbitrary locus to refer to the addressee in (9). And it would lead us to expect that in gestures as well Locative Shift cannot target indexical pronouns.