Logic, Language and Meaning pp 1-11 | Cite as
Formal Indices and Iconicity in ASL
Abstract
Iconic constraints play an important role in the semantics of sign language in general, and of sign language pronominals in particular (e.g. Cuxac 1999, Taub 2001, Liddell 2003, Lillo-Martin and Meier 2011). But the field is sharply divided among two camps: (a) specialists of formal linguistics (e.g. Neidle et al. 2000, Lillo-Martin 1991, Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006) primarily attempt to integrate sign language pronominals to universal models of anaphora, giving iconic phenomena a peripheral position; (b) specialists who emphasize the centrality of iconicity (e.g. Taub 2001, Liddell 2003) do so within informal frameworks that are not considered as sufficiently explicit by the formalist side. We attempt to reconcile insights from the two camps within a formal semantics with iconicity (Schlenker 2011a). We analyze three kinds of iconic effects: (i) structural iconicity, in which relations of embedding among loci are directly reflected in their denotations; (ii) locus-external iconicity, in which the high position of a locus in signing space has a direct semantic reflex; and (iii) locus-internal iconicity, where different parts of a structured locus are targeted by different directional verbs, as was argued by Liddell. We suggest that these phenomena can be understood if the interpretive procedure can, at the level of variables, impose an ’iconic mapping’ between loci and the objects they denote.
Keywords
anaphora sign language logic iconicityPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Cuxac, C.: French Sign Language: Proposition of a Structural Explanation by Iconicity. In: Braffort, A., Gibet, S., Teil, D., Gherbi, R., Richardson, J. (eds.) GW 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1739, pp. 165–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koulidobrova, E.: SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL). Manuscript, University of Connecticut (2011) Google Scholar
- Liddell, S.K.: Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lillo-Martin, D.: Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lillo-Martin, D., Klima, E.S.: Pointing out Differences: ASL Pronouns in Syntactic Theory. In: Fischer, S.D., Siple, P. (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 191–210. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1990)Google Scholar
- Lillo-Martin, D., Meier, R.: On the linguistic status of ’agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4), 95–141 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neidle, C., et al.: The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
- Nouwen, R.: Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht (2003) Google Scholar
- Sandler, W., Lillo-Martin, D.: Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press (2006)Google Scholar
- Schlenker, P.: Iconic Agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4), 223–234 (2011a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schlenker, P.: Donkey Anaphora: the View from Sign Language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics & Philosophy 34(4), 341–395 (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schlenker, P.: Complement Set Anaphora and Structural Iconicity in ASL. To appear in Snippets (to appear) Google Scholar
- Taub, S.F.: Language from the body. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar