Abstract
Sign languages are known to display the same general grammatical properties as spoken languages (‘Universal Grammar’), but also to make greater use of iconic mechanisms. In Schlenker et al.’s ‘Iconic Variables’ (Linguist Philos 36(2):91–149, 2013), it was argued that loci (= positions in signing space corresponding to discourse referents) can have an iconic semantics, in the sense that certain geometric relations among loci (subset and relative complementation, as well as high/low position relative to the signer) are preserved by the interpretation function. Here we ask whether plural and height specifications of loci display the formal behavior of phi-features in remaining uninterpreted in focus- and ellipsis-constructions (as in the bound readings of, e.g., Only Mary admires herself, or of Mary admires herself, and John does too). Data from ASL and LSF show that plural and height specifications may indeed remain uninterpreted in these constructions; furthermore, there are cases in which a single high locus is construed iconically and left uninterpreted in the course of ellipsis resolution. We argue that our data are compatible with two theories. According to the Strong View, plural and height specifications of loci display exactly the behavior of spoken language features. According to the Weak View, our data just show that plural and height specifications share the behavior of features and other non-assertive elements in being separable from the referential terms they specify. Our LSF data are compatible with the Weak View; our ASL data might provide support for the Strong View. While our aim is merely to open the debate about the featural status of iconic specifications, the question is of some importance: if features are innate and primitive elements of grammar, and if some of them have an intrinsically geometric semantics, the signed modality might play a greater role than is usually thought at the very core of Universal Grammar.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Corblin, Francis. 1996. Quantification et anaphore discursive: la référence aux complémentaires. Langages 123: 51–74.
Cuxac, Christian. 1999. French sign language: Proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. In Gesture-based communication in human–computer interaction, ed. A. Braort, et al., 165–184. Berlin: Springer.
Geurts, Bart. 1997. Book review of Linda M. Moxey and Anthony J. Sanford, Communicating Quantities. 1993. Journal of Semantics 14(1): 87–94.
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, ed. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Bejar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacobson, Pauline. 2012. Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: The case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics 29: 305–343.
Kegl, Judy. 2004. ASL syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Sign Language & Linguistics 7: 2. (Reprint of an MIT manuscript written in 1977.)
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2011a. SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL). Manuscript, University of Connecticut.
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2011b. Null objects in ASL: A case of (bare) NP drop. Manuscript, University of Connecticut.
Kuhn, Jeremy. 2014. ASL loci: Variables or features? Manuscript, New York University.
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1991. Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lillo-Martin, Diane and Klima, Edward S.: 1990, Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Volume 1: Linguistics, 191-210. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lillo-Martin, Diane, and Richard Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4): 95–141.
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff, and Wendy Sandler. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2): 309–343.
Neidle, Carol et al. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nouwen, Rick: 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations no. 84, LOT, Utrecht.
Quer, Josep. 2013. Attitude ascriptions in sign languages and role shift. In Proceedings of the 13th Texas Linguistics Society Meeting, ed. L.C. Geer.
Rooth, Mats. 1992. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgarter Ellipsis Workshop, ed. Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, no. 29. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart.
Rullmann, Hotze. 2004. First and second person pronouns as bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 159–168.
Sandler, Wendy, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sauerland, U., J. Anderssen, and J. Yatsushiro. 2005. The plural is semantically unmarked. In Linguistic evidence, ed. S. Kepser, and M. Reis, 413–433. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of φ-features. In Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces, ed. D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sauerland, Uli. 2013. Presuppositions and the Alternative Tier. Poster, Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 2013, UC Santa Cruz.
Schlenker Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003a. A plea for monsters. Linguistics & Philosophy 26: 29–120.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003b. Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II (Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000), ed. J. Lecarme, 409–428. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2009. Local contexts. Semantics & Pragmatics 2(Article 3): 1–78. doi:10.3765/sp.2.3.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011a. Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4): 223–234.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011b. Donkey anaphora: The view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics & Philosophy 34(4): 341–395.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2014. Featural variables. Manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.
Schlenker, Philippe. To appear. Gradient and iconic features in ASL. Snippets.
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton, and Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2): 91–149.
Sharvit, Yael. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics & Philosophy 31: 353–395.
Spector, Benjamin. 2007. Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics, ed. Uli Sauerland and Penka Stateva, 243–281. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sudo, Yasutada: 2012, On the Semantics of Phi Features on Pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
von Stechow, Armin. 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 23, ed. M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (eds.), 133–157. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Yanovich, Igor. 2010. On the nature and formal analysis of indexical presuppositions. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6284, New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 272–291. Berlin: Springer.
Zucchi, Sandro. 2012. Formal semantics of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(11): 719–734.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Igor Casas for help with the transcriptions of some LSF data. I also wish to thank David Adger, Carlo Cecchetto, Emmanuel Chemla, Carlo Geraci, Oliver Pouliot, Uli Sauerland, and Benjamin Spector for helpful discussions. Finally, I am extremely grateful to two anonymous reviewers for Natural Language Semantics, who offered numerous helpful suggestions; and to Christine Bartels, who as always was a superb copyeditor. The present work was supported by a Euryi grant of the European Science Foundation (‘Presupposition: a Formal Pragmatic Approach’; before May 1st, 2013) and by an Advanced Grant of the European Research Council (‘New Frontiers of Formal Semantics’; after May 1st, 2013). Neither foundation is responsible for any claims made here. The research reported in this piece also contributes to the COST Action IS1006. The author’s home institution, Institut d’Études Cognitives (of which Institut Jean-Nicod is a member) is supported by grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC and ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
ASL Consultant: Jonathan Lamberton
LSF Consultants: Ludovic Ducasse and Yann Cantin
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schlenker, P. Iconic features. Nat Lang Semantics 22, 299–356 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9106-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-014-9106-4