Skip to main content

Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language

Abstract

Data from Italian Sign Language provide evidence in favor of a degree-based analysis over a non-degree based analysis for gradable adjectives and comparative constructions. Morphological and phonological constraints identify a class of gradable adjectives in which degree variables can be overtly represented as ordered points established in the signing space by an iconic mapping. When this happens the visible degree becomes available as an antecedent for a later pronoun, as in the nominal, temporal and modal domain, showing that the same anaphoric system is at work.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. This analysis is identical to that of Cresswell (1976), but this is not the only option. Other analyses assume a partial ordering relation (Heim 1985).

  2. These constraints include the following: (i) for a given comparison class X, an individual cannot be both tall and not tall in X; (ii) for two comparison classes X1 and X2, it can’t be the case that John is tall and Mary is not tall in X1, but Mary is tall and John is not tall in X2 (Burnett 2015).

  3. Another possibility could be that the English pronominal system lacks a pronominal form that refers to degrees altogether. This situation would be similar to the one described for parasitic gaps targeting prepositional phrases in English (Engdahl 2001, but see Levine et al. 2001 for counter arguments). Specifically, Engdahl (2001) argues that differently from Swedish, English does not have parasitic gaps on prepositional phrases because English lacks proforms that are able to refer to prepositional phrases.

  4. The sign for deep is glossed deep-cl rather than deep because in the lexicon of LIS there are two signs for deep. One is a classifier sign while the other is not (see also the discussion around the example (14a) in the text).

  5. For convenience we translate the meaning of the sentence with an English than-clause even if the syntactic structure of the LIS sentence is different from the than-clause.

  6. Iconic-more behaves like the positive morpheme pos, it iconically maps the amount of the property denoted by the subject (the man and the woman in the case of (15b)). Specifically, the iconic mapping of the comparative morpheme iconic-more needs to be the same as that of the positive morpheme pos (a vertical line in the case of tall, a horizontal in the case of big, etc.)

  7. The main difference between iconic-more and iconic-less is that the movement of the latter goes in the opposite direction. More generally, in more-comparatives the movement of iconic-more goes in the same direction as that of the positive form. Hence, if the movement of the positive form is directed downward, as in deep-cl, then iconic-more is also directed downward.

  8. An anonymous reviewer asked whether forcing the presence of boundaries at the edges of gradable adjectives makes degree scales visible as an effect of coercion, as reported for ASL (Wilbur et al. 2012:198). We tested this with some adjectives including thin and long and the degrees are never accessible.

  9. One crucial difference between our proposal and that of Wilbur et al. (2012) is that in our proposal neither of the two points represents any of the scale boundaries but just two of its degrees along a scale which is itself visible, see the discussion in Sect. 3.3. Furthermore, Wilbur et al. (2012) do not discuss comparatives or anaphoric relations.

  10. Kennedy and McNally (2005:349): “Gradable adjectives are those adjectives that map their arguments onto abstract representations of measurement, or degrees, which are formalized as points or intervals partially ordered along some dimension (i.e. Tall is ordered by a measure of height). A scale is a set of ordered degrees.”

References

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2011. Comparison construction. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner. Vol. 2, 1341–1389. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, Heather. 2015. Comparison across domains in Delineation Semantics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 24: 233–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, Max J. 1976. The semantics of degree. In Montague grammar, ed. Barbara Partee, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Demonte, Violeta. 2011. Adjectives. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner Vol. 2, 1314–1340. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, Elisabet. 2001. Versatile parasitic gaps. In Parasitic gaps, eds. Peter Culicover and Paul Postal, 127–145. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives. Ms., University of Texas.

  • Heim, Irene. 2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur vox sapientiae, eds. Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 1997. Projecting the adjective. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Cruz.

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of ‘degrees’. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: Semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy. 30: 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81(2): 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, Robert, Thomas Hukari, and Michael Calcagno. 2001. Parasitic gaps in English: Some overlooked cases and their theoretical implications. In Parasitic gaps, eds. Peter Culicover and Paul Postal, 181–222. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Willard V. 1948. On what there is. The Review of Metaphysics 2(1): 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of WH-constructions. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2013. Temporal and modal anaphora in Sign Language (ASL). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1): 207–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. PhD diss., University of California, San Diego.

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time, and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Theoretical issues in sign language research, ed. Josep Quer, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B., Evguenia Malaia, and Robin A. Shay. 2012. Degree modification and intensification in American Sign Language adjectives. In 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. Maria Aloni, 92–101. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our LIS consultants Mirko Santoro and Lorenzo Laudo. This work would not be possible without them. The work also benefited from discussion with Philippe Schlenker, Jeremy Kuhn, as well as audiences at FEAST 2015, IGG41, CGG25 and Workshop on Gradability Scale structure and Vagueness: Experimental perspective.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentina Aristodemo.

Additional information

The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement N°324115 FRONTSEM (PI: Schlenker). Research was conducted at Institut d’Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure – PSL Research University. Institut d’Études Cognitives is supported by grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC and ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL. This research has been possible also thanks to the SIGN-HUB project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N. 693349 (PI: Carlo Geraci) and to the Fyssen Foundation Research Grant Historical relations across sign languages: Language Families or Iconic similarities? (PI: Carlo Geraci)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aristodemo, V., Geraci, C. Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 36, 685–699 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9389-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9389-5

Keywords

  • Degrees
  • Gradable adjectives
  • Comparatives
  • Sign Language
  • Iconicity
  • Degree anaphora