rsl pronouns, indexicality and the signing space

. . . . . .

Binding eory Data. . .. .. . . . . . . . .

Analysis Conclusions

Russian Sign Language Pronouns, Indexicalityand the Signing Space

Pavel Rudnev and Vadim Kimmelman

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; Universiteit van Amsterdam

RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

. . . . . .

Outline

.. Binding eory

.. Data

.. AnalysisLack of ambiguityIndices cannot be boundSigning space and indexicality

.. Conclusions

. . . . . .

Binding theory

Basic Binding eory (Chomsky ):• P A: An anaphor must be bound in its governing

category• P B: A pronominal must be free in its governing

category

() Johni saw himselfi.() Johni saw him*i/j.

. . . . . .

Semantic vs. syntactic binding

Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should beformulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.• Every boy thinks he is a genius.• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference

• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.• Every boy thinks he is a genius.• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.

• Every boy thinks he is a genius.• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.• Every boy thinks he is a genius.

• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.• Every boy thinks he is a genius.• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩

• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

• Semantic binding ̸= coreference• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.• Every boy thinks he is a genius.• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩

. . . . . .

e Coreference Rule (Büring )

• e Coreference Rule: if semantic binding and coreference yieldindistinguishable interpretations, then semantic binding ispreferred.

. . . . . .

How to detect semantic binding

() Only Johni loves himselfi.= ‘John loves John, and nobody else loves him/herself.’= *‘John loves John, and nobody else loves John.’

() Only Johni loves hisi wife.= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves John’s wife.’= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves his own wife.’

() John loves himself, and Bill too.() John loves his wife, and Bill too.() Everyonei loves himselfi/*himi.

. . . . . .

() John loves himself, and Bill too.() John loves his wife, and Bill too.

() Everyonei loves himselfi/*himi.

. . . . . .

() John loves himself, and Bill too.() John loves his wife, and Bill too.() Everyonei loves himselfi/*himi.

. . . . . .

ASL: everything is OK

• ere is a re exive pronoun and non-re exive pronouns(pointing signs).

• Principle B works:

() /*‘Mary does not want to criticize herself ’

e re exive pronouns is also an intensi er (Koulidobrova ).

. . . . . .

Croatian Sign Language: something is not OK

In the data discussed here, there was only one HZJ examplewith “he sees REFLEX in the mirror”, so it is not known if it isobligatory or not. In discussion with participants, some ofthem said that it is obligatory and some that it is not. isfunction requires further investigation.

(Alibašić Ciciliani and Wilbur )

• According to Ronnie Wilbur (p.c.), Principle B does indeed notwork in HZJ as well as it does in ASL.

. . . . . .

Russian Sign Language and NGT

e factIn Russian Sign Language non-re exive pronouns can be used toexpress co-reference even in the co-argument context.

() a. - ‘He paints himself (a picture of himself)’

b. - -‘He paints himself (lit.: He paints him)’

• e same can be shown for Sign Language of the Netherlands(NGT).

. . . . . .

Similar facts in spoken languages

Enç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:

() I believe in me.() I bought me a new coat.

In Turkish rst- and second-person non-re exive pronouns canobviate Principle B:

() a. BenI

beniI-

akıllısmart

sanıyordum.thought

‘I considered myself smart’b. Sen

youseniyou.

akıllısmart

sanıyordun.thought

‘You considered yourself smart’

. . . . . .

Similar facts in spoken languagesEnç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.

First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:

() a. BenI

beniI-

akıllısmart

sanıyordum.thought

youseniyou.

akıllısmart

sanıyordun.thought

. . . . . .

Similar facts in spoken languagesEnç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:

() a. BenI

beniI-

akıllısmart

sanıyordum.thought

youseniyou.

akıllısmart

sanıyordun.thought

. . . . . .

Similar facts in spoken languagesEnç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:

() a. BenI

beniI-

akıllısmart

sanıyordum.thought

youseniyou.

akıllısmart

sanıyordun.thought

. . . . . .

Some more facts from RSLQuanti er bindingIn RSL only the re exive pronoun can be bound by a co-argumentquanti er in the subject position, while non-re exive pronounscannot.

() a. - ‘Each boy paints himself ’

b. - -‘Each boy paints the boys as a group (not himself)’

• It means that can be used to express coreference only in thecoargument domain, while is used to express thebound-variable reading in the same domain.

• is is an obviation of the Coreference Rule.

. . . . . .

• is is an obviation of the Coreference Rule.RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

. . . . . .

Similar facts in English

• In English a rst-person pronoun in the co-argument contextexpresses coreference only:

() *Everyonei saw mei.() I bought me a new coat, and you did too. (It can only mean

that you bought me a new coat)() Only I bought me a new coat. (It can only mean that no one

else bought me a new coat)

. . . . . .

Similar facts in English

• In English a rst-person pronoun in the co-argument contextexpresses coreference only:

() *Everyonei saw mei.() I bought me a new coat, and you did too. (It can only mean

that you bought me a new coat)() Only I bought me a new coat. (It can only mean that no one

else bought me a new coat)

. . . . . .

Possible explanations

Outline

• Lack of ambiguity• Addition: indices cannot be bound• Signing space and more

. . . . . .

Outline• Lack of ambiguity

• Addition: indices cannot be bound• Signing space and more

. . . . . .

Outline• Lack of ambiguity• Addition: indices cannot be bound

• Signing space and more

. . . . . .

Outline• Lack of ambiguity• Addition: indices cannot be bound• Signing space and more

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

An obvious explanation

Lack of ambiguityIn RSL (and other sign languages) pointing unambiguously identi esthe referents. erefore, coreference is easily expressed bynon-re exive pronouns and re exives are not necessary. e same canbe said about rst and second-person pronouns in spoken languages.

Enç () claimed that indexicals are [+anchored] by the context andtherefore can obviate Principle B. e motivation behind this is thatthey lack ambiguity.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

An obvious explanation

Lack of ambiguityIn RSL (and other sign languages) pointing unambiguously identi esthe referents. erefore, coreference is easily expressed bynon-re exive pronouns and re exives are not necessary. e same canbe said about rst and second-person pronouns in spoken languages.

Enç () claimed that indexicals are [+anchored] by the context andtherefore can obviate Principle B. e motivation behind this is thatthey lack ambiguity.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

• Problem : In reality there is some ambiguity in pointing in SL.For instance, between the location and the referent located there(RSL):

() -. - ‘Here is the boy’s house. It/he is big’.

• Still there is much less ambigity in sign languages.• Problem : Re exive pronouns are still present in RSL, ASL, ISL,

CrSL, French SL, SL of the Netherlands and, most likely, in otherSLs. Re exive pronouns are used in rst- and second-personcases in English and Turkish.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

• Still there is much less ambigity in sign languages.

• Problem : Re exive pronouns are still present in RSL, ASL, ISL,CrSL, French SL, SL of the Netherlands and, most likely, in otherSLs. Re exive pronouns are used in rst- and second-personcases in English and Turkish.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

• Still there is much less ambigity in sign languages.• Problem : Re exive pronouns are still present in RSL, ASL, ISL,

CrSL, French SL, SL of the Netherlands and, most likely, in otherSLs. Re exive pronouns are used in rst- and second-personcases in English and Turkish.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

• Problem : Ambiguity (or the lack of it) is not involved in theformal Binding eory (Büring ).

• Problem : e impossibility to bind the non-re exive pronounsin the co-argument context (as opposed to coreference) is notexplained in any way.

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

. . . . . .

Lack of ambiguity

Problems and

. . . . . .

Indices cannot be bound

Maybe problem is connected to indexicality?

Could it be the pointing/indexical nature of non-re exive pronounswhich prevents them from being bound (and thus re exives are stillhandy)?

• In ASL and ISL re exive pronouns are also pointing signs. Wecan deduce that nevertheless they can be bound.

• In non-co-argument contexts in RSL pointing signs can bebound.

. . . . . .

More facts

• In RSL the re exive sign can be accompanied by pointing. In thiscase pointing does not prevent binding:

() a. - +-‘e boy paints himself ’

b. - +-‘Every boy paints himself.’

• In English rst-person pronouns in principle can be bound:

() Only I think that I passed the exam.

. . . . . .

More facts

. . . . . .

More facts

. . . . . .

Signing space and indexicality

Back to the Coreference Rule

() a. Johni saw himselfi.b. Johni saw him*i/j.

• In (-b) him cannot be coreferent with John because it wouldmean coreference instead of binding, so (-a) is preferred.

. . . . . .

Back to the Coreference Rule

() a. Johni saw himselfi.b. Johni saw him*i/j.

• In (-b) him cannot be coreferent with John because it wouldmean coreference instead of binding, so (-a) is preferred.

. . . . . .

Breaking the Coreference Ruleis means that in RSL (and in spoken languages) the CoreferenceRule is broken:

• Re exive pronouns are used to express the bound-variablereading, while pointing – to express co-reference.

• ere is no difference in interpretation between re exive andnon-re exive pronouns:

() a. - ‘He paints himself ’

b. - -‘He paints himself ’

() I bought me/myself a new coat.

. . . . . .

e Coreference Rule again

What is the motivation behind the claim that semantic binding ispreferred over coreference?

e economy rationale behind this strategy is that variable bindingis a more economical means to identify referential identity of twoexpressions. Actual assignment of reference, at the interface,requires relating an expression to the set of entities in the discourse(model, domain or whatever). In the case of variable binding, ⟨. . .⟩,this procedure has to apply once, identifying the value of one of thearguments. In all other cases, it has to apply to each argument.⟨. . .⟩ If what is intended is the referential identity of thesearguments, applying the same procedure twice, when we could havedone it only once, is uneconomical.

(Reinhart :)

. . . . . .

e Coreference Rule again

What is the motivation behind the claim that semantic binding ispreferred over coreference?

e economy rationale behind this strategy is that variable bindingis a more economical means to identify referential identity of twoexpressions. Actual assignment of reference, at the interface,requires relating an expression to the set of entities in the discourse(model, domain or whatever). In the case of variable binding, ⟨. . .⟩,this procedure has to apply once, identifying the value of one of thearguments. In all other cases, it has to apply to each argument.⟨. . .⟩ If what is intended is the referential identity of thesearguments, applying the same procedure twice, when we could havedone it only once, is uneconomical.

(Reinhart :)

. . . . . .

Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages

Spoken languages Sign languages

Signing space

Discourse Discourse

Syntax

Real world Real world

Referent Referent

Locus A

The boy

himself BOY IX-A

. . . . . .

e role of signing space

e main hypothesisSigning space in SL is a part of syntax (computational system).Coindexation in syntax is not as costly as coreference via referenceassignment.

• e apparent breaches of the Coreference Rule in RSL areexplained.

• Ambiguity is not involved in the explanation of binding in RSL.

. . . . . .

Is this idea new?

• e answer is: no.

• Lillo-Martin and Klima (): “… an R-locus in ASL is part ofthe vocabulary of form”

• In other words, semantic indices are overtly expressed in syntaxin ASL. Indices therefore are syntactic objects in ASL.

Spoken languagesis can also explain the spoken language data: it is possible topostulate that indices are present in syntax in rst- and second-personpronouns.

. . . . . .

Is this idea new?

• e answer is: no.• Lillo-Martin and Klima (): “… an R-locus in ASL is part of

the vocabulary of form”• In other words, semantic indices are overtly expressed in syntax

in ASL. Indices therefore are syntactic objects in ASL.

. . . . . .

Is this idea new?

• e answer is: no.• Lillo-Martin and Klima (): “… an R-locus in ASL is part of

the vocabulary of form”• In other words, semantic indices are overtly expressed in syntax

in ASL. Indices therefore are syntactic objects in ASL.

. . . . . .

Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages

Signing space

Discourse Discourse

Syntax

Referent Referent

Locus A

The boy

himself BOY IX-A

. . . . . .

Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages-

Signing spaceIndexes

Discourse Discourse

Syntax

Referent Referent

Locus AIndex i

The boy

himself BOY IX-A

. . . . . .

e problem of optionality

• ASL also has signing space. Why is the Coreference Rule notbroken in it?

• In Russian rst- and second-person pronouns cannot obviate theCoreference Rule.

HypothesisWhether a language considers co-indexation in syntax economical issubject to variation.

. . . . . .

Conclusions

• Insights from sign languages can be applied to spoken languages.• Indices are present in syntax in sign languages (via signing space)

and in spoken languages (via indexicals).• Coreference Rule obviations in RSL and in spoken languages are

uniformly explained.• Ambiguity (or lack thereof) is not involved in the explanation.

. . . . . .

References

Büring, D. . Binding eory. Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. . Lectures on government and binding.Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Enç, M. . Anchored expressions. In M. Barlow, D.P. Flickinger& M.T. Westcoat (eds.) Proceedings of WCCFL : –. CSLIPublications.Lillo-Martin, D. and E.S. Klima. . Pointing out differences:ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In S.D. Fischer & P. Siple (eds.)eoretical issues in sign language research: –.

. . . . . .

References

Reinhart, T. . Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatementof anaphora question. Language and Philosophy. . –.

Reinhart, T. . Interface strategies. Ms, University of Utrecht.

Sandler, W. and D. Lillo-Martin. . Sign Language andLinguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.

rsl pronouns, indexicality and the signing space

Documents

semantic binding

binding principles

john loves johns wife

syntactic binding reinhart

loves himherself

rsl pronouns

spacerudnev kimmelman

binding eory data