Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 91–149 | Cite as

Iconic variables

  • Philippe Schlenker
  • Jonathan Lamberton
  • Mirko Santoro
Research Article

Abstract

We argue that some sign language loci (i.e. positions in signing space that realize discourse referents) are both formal variables and simplified representations of what they denote; in other words, they are simultaneously logical symbols and pictorial representations. We develop a 'formal semantics with iconicity' that accounts for their dual life; the key idea ('formal iconicity') is that some geometric properties of signs must be preserved by the interpretation function. We analyze in these terms three kinds of iconic effects in American and French Sign Language (ASL and LSF): (i) structural iconicity, where relations of inclusion and complementation among loci are directly reflected in their denotations; (ii) locus-external iconicity, where the high or low position of a locus in signing space has a direct semantic reflex, akin to the semantic contribution of gender features of pronouns; and (iii) locus-internal iconicity, where different parts of a structured locus are targeted by different directional verbs, as was argued by Liddell and Kegl. The resulting semantics combines insights of two traditions that have been sharply divided by recent debates. In line with the 'formalist camp' (e.g. Lillo-Martin and Klima, Neidle, and Sandler and Lillo-Martin), our theory treats loci as variables, and develops an explicit formal analysis of their behavior. But we also incorporate insights of the 'iconic camp', which emphasized the role of iconic constraints in sign language in general and in pronominals in particular (e.g. Cuxac, Taub, Liddell). However, this synthesis is only possible if formal semantics makes provisions for iconic requirements at the very core of its interpretive procedure. (An Appendix discusses relevant data from Italian Sign Language [LIS].)

Keywords

Sign language Semantics Logic Iconicity Anaphora Variables 

References

  1. Barberà, G. (2012). The meaning of space in Catalan sign language (LSC). Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. PhD thesis, University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona (available on the author’s website).Google Scholar
  2. Cogill-Koez, D. (2000). Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 153–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, R. (1983). Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corblin, F. (1996). Quantification et anaphore discursive: la référence aux complémentaires. Langages, 123, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuxac, C. (1999). French sign language: Proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. In A. Braort, et al. (Eds.), Gesture-based communication in human–computer interaction (pp. 165–184). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition and the brain. Insights from sign language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Emmorey, K., & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 221–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Geurts, B. (1997). Book review of Linda M. Moxey and Anthony J. Sanford, Communicating quantities. 1993. Journal of Semantics, 14(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giorgolo, G. (2010). Space and time in our hands. Utrecht: Uil-OTS, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Greenberg, G. (2012). Pictorial semantics. Manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  11. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Hou, L. Y., & Meier, R. P. (2012, September 22). Idiosyncratic first-person object forms of directional verbs in ASL. Handout of a talk given at the American International Morphology Meeting, University of Massachusetts—Amherst.Google Scholar
  13. Kegl, J. (2004). ASL syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Sign Language & Linguistics, 7(2), 131–170. (Reprint of an MIT manuscript written in 1977.)Google Scholar
  14. Koulidobrova, E. (2011). SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American sign language (ASL). Manuscript, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  15. Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American sign language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lillo-Martin, D. (1991). Universal grammar and American sign language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lillo-Martin, D., & Klima, E. S. (1990). Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In S. D. Fischer & P. Siple (Eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, volume 1: Linguistics (pp. 191–210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. (2011). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 95–141.Google Scholar
  20. Macken, E., Perry, J., & Haas, C. (2003). Richly grounding symbols in ASL. Sign Language Studies, 81, 375–394.Google Scholar
  21. Neidle, C., et al. (2000). The syntax of American sign language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Quer, J. (2005). Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Proceedings of semantic and linguistic theory (= SALT) XV. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlenker, P. (2011a). Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schlenker, P. (2011b). Donkey anaphora: The view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics & Philosophy, 34(4), 341–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlenker, P. (2012). Complement set anaphora and structural iconicity in ASL. Snippets, 25, 15–17.Google Scholar
  28. Schlenker, P., & Lamberton, J. (2012). Formal indices and iconicity in ASL. In M. Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. W. Sassoon, K. Schulz, & M. Westera (Eds.), AC’11 proceedings of the 18th Amsterdam colloquium conference on logic, language and meaning (pp. 1–11). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Schlenker, P., & Mathur, G. (2012). A strong crossover effect in ASL. To appear in Snippets.Google Scholar
  30. Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics & Philosophy, 31, 353–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw, E., & Delaporte, Y. (2010). New perspectives on the history of American sign language. Sign Language Studies, 11(2), 158–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilbur, R. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society, 39, 354–368.Google Scholar
  35. Yanovich, I. (2010). On the nature and formal analysis of indexical presuppositions. In New frontiers in artificial intelligence. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6284, pp. 272–291).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Schlenker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jonathan Lamberton
    • 3
  • Mirko Santoro
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institut Jean-NicodCNRSParisFrance
  2. 2.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.CUNY—Queens CollegeQueensUSA
  4. 4.EHESSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations