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].)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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).
Cogill-Koez, D. (2000). Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 153–207.
Cooper, R. (1983). Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Corblin, F. (1996). Quantification et anaphore discursive: la référence aux complémentaires. Langages, 123, 51–74.
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.
Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition and the brain. Insights from sign language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
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.
Geurts, B. (1997). Book review of Linda M. Moxey and Anthony J. Sanford, Communicating quantities. 1993. Journal of Semantics, 14(1), 87–94.
Giorgolo, G. (2010). Space and time in our hands. Utrecht: Uil-OTS, Universiteit Utrecht.
Greenberg, G. (2012). Pictorial semantics. Manuscript, UCLA.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
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.)
Koulidobrova, E. (2011). SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American sign language (ASL). Manuscript, University of Connecticut.
Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Liddell, S. K. (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American sign language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lillo-Martin, D. (1991). Universal grammar and American sign language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
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.
Lillo-Martin, D., & Meier, R. (2011). On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 95–141.
Macken, E., Perry, J., & Haas, C. (2003). Richly grounding symbols in ASL. Sign Language Studies, 81, 375–394.
Neidle, C., et al. (2000). The syntax of American sign language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht.
Quer, J. (2005). Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Proceedings of semantic and linguistic theory (= SALT) XV. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schlenker, P. (2011a). Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3–4), 223–234.
Schlenker, P. (2011b). Donkey anaphora: The view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics & Philosophy, 34(4), 341–395.
Schlenker, P. (2012). Complement set anaphora and structural iconicity in ASL. Snippets, 25, 15–17.
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.
Schlenker, P., & Mathur, G. (2012). A strong crossover effect in ASL. To appear in Snippets.
Sharvit, Y. (2008). The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics & Philosophy, 31, 353–395.
Shaw, E., & Delaporte, Y. (2010). New perspectives on the history of American sign language. Sign Language Studies, 11(2), 158–204.
Sudo, Y. (2012). On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Taub, S. F. (2001). Language from the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilbur, R. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistics Society, 39, 354–368.
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).