Formal Semantics of Sign Languages

Zucchi, Sandro

doi:10.1002/lnc3.348

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accounts of, e.g., the grammar of pronominal anaphora, or the tense system of several sign languages have been proposed that utilize the same ingredients of standard generative grammar (see e.g., Zucchi, 2012). …”

Section: Interactional Aspects Of Communication Already Accepted Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction

Ginzburg

Poesio

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of contemporary mainstream formal grammar theory is unable to provide analyses for language as it occurs in actual spoken interaction. Its analyses are developed for a cleaned up version of language which omits the disfluencies, non-sentential utterances, gestures, and many other phenomena that are ubiquitous in spoken language. Using evidence from linguistics, conversation analysis, multimodal communication, psychology, language acquisition, and neuroscience, we show these aspects of language use are rule governed in much the same way as phenomena captured by conventional grammars. Furthermore, we argue that over the past few years some of the tools required to provide a precise characterizations of such phenomena have begun to emerge in theoretical and computational linguistics; hence, there is no reason for treating them as “second class citizens” other than pre-theoretical assumptions about what should fall under the purview of grammar. Finally, we suggest that grammar formalisms covering such phenomena would provide a better foundation not just for linguistic analysis of face-to-face interaction, but also for sister disciplines, such as research on spoken dialogue systems and/or psychological work on language acquisition.

show abstract

Section: Interactional Aspects Of Communication Already Accepted Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction

Ginzburg

Poesio

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this in mind, it has been proposed that sign language pronouns are interpreted through a function that assigns a variable to a potential antecedent—say Mary(x)—and the same variable to pronouns used to pick out this antecedent—here, IX(x). 43 In principle, this same interpretation process would apply to both sign languages and spoken languages. The primary difference is that the sign languages overtly realize the difference between the variables through different spatial loci, whereas in spoken language the variables are covert.…”

Section: Use Of Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This combination of linguistic and non‐linguistic means for conveying information in classifier constructions raises interesting questions for semantics, and in particular whether there is a substantive difference between the principles of interpretation in signed and spoken languages . An interesting proposal for integrating the two sources of meaning is made by Ceccheto and Zucchi (C&Z) .…”

Section: Iconicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not to say that sign language pronouns are never ambiguous—ambiguity (or vagueness) may arise in some contexts, but generally examples like (7) in sign languages are not ambiguous. With this in mind, it has been proposed that sign language pronouns are interpreted through a function that assigns a variable to a potential antecedent—say Mary(x)—and the same variable to pronouns used to pick out this antecedent—here, IX(x) . In principle, this same interpretation process would apply to both sign languages and spoken languages.…”

Section: Use Of Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

“…39,42 This combination of linguistic and non-linguistic means for conveying information in classifier constructions raises interesting questions for semantics, and in particular whether there is a substantive difference between the principles of interpretation in signed and spoken languages. 43 An interesting proposal for integrating the two sources of meaning is made by Ceccheto and Zucchi (C&Z). 44 Much like Schlenker et al, C&Z propose that information conveyed through iconic means, like the movement of a classifier predicate, may be integrated into the interpretation of a formal linguistic expression through fixing the value of a variable in the semantic representation with salient contextual information.…”

Section: Classifier Predicatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language

Lillo‐Martin

Gajewski

2014

WIRES Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic research has identified abstract properties that seem to be shared by all languages—such properties may be considered defining characteristics. In recent decades, the recognition that human language is found not only in the spoken modality but also in the form of sign languages has led to a reconsideration of some of these potential linguistic universals. In large part, the linguistic analysis of sign languages has led to the conclusion that universal characteristics of language can be stated at an abstract enough level to include languages in both spoken and signed modalities. For example, languages in both modalities display hierarchical structure at sub-lexical and phrasal level, and recursive rule application. However, this does not mean that modality-based differences between signed and spoken languages are trivial. In this article, we consider several candidate domains for modality effects, in light of the overarching question: are signed and spoken languages subject to the same abstract grammatical constraints, or is a substantially different conception of grammar needed for the sign language case? We look at differences between language types based on the use of space, iconicity, and the possibility for simultaneity in linguistic expression. The inclusion of sign languages does support some broadening of the conception of human language—in ways that are applicable for spoken languages as well. Still, the overall conclusion is that one grammar applies for human language, no matter the modality of expression.

show abstract

Iconic Syntax: sign language classifier predicates and gesture sequences

Schlenker,

Bonnet,

Lamberton

et al. 2023

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that the pictorial nature of certain constructions in signs and in gestures explains surprising properties of their syntax. In several sign languages, the standard word order (e.g. SVO) gets turned into SOV (with preverbal arguments) when the predicate is a classifier predicate, a distinguished construction with highly iconic properties (e.g. Pavlič 2016). In silent gestures, subjects also prefer an SOV order in extensional constructions, irrespective of the word order of the language they speak (Goldin-Meadow et al. 2008). But in silent gestures and in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), intensional constructions can override these SOV preferences, yielding SVO instead (Schouwstra and de Swart 2014, Napoli et al. 2017. This distinction was argued to be due to iconicity: arguments are expressed before the verb if they correspond to entities that are present before the action, otherwise they follow the verb. While agreeing with this intuition, we propose that the extensional/intensional distinction is neither empirically nor theoretically appropriate. In new data from American Sign Language (ASL), we replicate the distinction among extensional classifier predicates: for x ate up the ball, the ball is typically seen before the eating and a preposed object is preferred; but for x spit out the ball, the ball is typically seen after the spitting and a postposed object is preferred, although both eat up and spit out are used extensionally. We extend this finding to data involving pro-speech (= speech-replacing) gestures embedded in French sentences. We argue for a Visibility Generalization according to which arguments appear before the verb if their denotations are typically visible before the action, and we develop a new formal account within a pictorial semantics for visual animations (inspired by Greenberg and Abusch). It derives the observed word order preferences, it explains how the semantics of classifier predicates combines iconic and conventional properties, and it makes a more general point: sign language semantics combines logical semantics with pictorial semantics.

show abstract

Formal Semantics of Sign Languages

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction

Grammar Is a System That Characterizes Talk in Interaction

One grammar or two? Sign Languages and the Nature of Human Language

Iconic Syntax: sign language classifier predicates and gesture sequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About