Sign Language Syntax II Topics

1
Sign Language Syntax II Topics

• Sandler Lillo-Martin (2006), chapter 22
• Topic and Focus
• COGS 524, Cognitive and Linguistic aspects of
  Sign Language,
• Spring Term, Middle East Technical University,
  Cognitive Science Program
• Annette Hohenberger

2
Information packaging - Topic and Focus

• Topic and focus are discourse-relevant notions
  which can be realised in different ways
  syntactically and/or prosodically. They relate to
  information packaging, i.e., the way in which
  languages arrange the constituents with respect
  to each other, in order to convey a certain
  information.

3
Information in setencencs can be divided in two
ways

• 1. Topic-
• what the sentence is about
• Old info
• S-initial
• 2. Ground-
• Presupposition, back-ground, open proposition

• Comment
• Comment on the topic
• New information
• Focus
• New information
• May be in phonological focus

4
Combined system(Vallduví and Engdahl 1996)

• Vallduví and Engdahl propose a 3-level hierarchy
• Sentence
• Focus Ground
• link tail
• topic

The elements can be expressed by word order or
by prosody
A typical sequence involves link focus tail,
as in She (topic, link) gave a SHIRT (Focus) to
Harry (tail)
5
/- Plastic languages

• plastic languages
• can express information packaging through prosody

• - plastic languages
• express information packaging through word order,
  not through prosody

6
Topics in sign languages

• Topics are mostly S-initial.
• Either they have moved there from an underlying
  base position somewhere else in the S or they are
  base-generated right there.
• English expls
• Topicalized, movedBeansi, I like ti.
• Topicalized, base-generated
• As for beans, I like them.

7
Non-manual markings of topics in ASL

• In general, topics are marked non-manually by a
  slight head-tilt backwards and raised eyebrows
• (Bahan, 1996, 78 Aarons 1994, 71)

8
3 different non-manual topic markingstm1

• Tm1
• brows raised (br), head tilted back and to side,
  eyes widened, head moves down and forward
• Moved topic from argument position in matrix
  clause.
• Aarons, 1994, 157

9
Negation marking

• Aarons, 1994, 72

10
3 different non-manual topic markingstm2

• Tm2
• used for introducing new information which
  changes the discourse topic. It is associated
  with an argument in the following clause,
  therefore base-generated. Topic and argument may
  stand in a classmember relationship
  (flowerstulips)
• tm2 is a base-generated topic.

11
tm2

• Tm2
• large movement of the head back and to the side,
  eyes very wide, head moves down and forward
• Aarons, 1994, 161

12
3 different non-manual topic markings, tm3
(Aarons 1994, 164)

• Tm3
• head forward, jerked slightly up down, mouth
  open, upper lip raised, br, fixed gaze, eyes wide
  open
• base-generated,

With tm3, a new topic is introduced whose
knowledge in the interlocutor the speaker
presupposes You know X Tm3 is a base-generated
topic
13
Summary tm1-3 (Aarons 1994, 156)
14
Topics in embedded clauses
Topicalization is also possible in embedded
clauses, but only in infinitival
onesInfinitival embedded clause
tm1JOHNi, TEACHER REQUIRE ti LIPREAD
MOTHERFinite embedded clause tm1JOHNi,
TEACHER REQUIRE ti MUSTTNS LIPREAD MOTHER
15
Combinations and sequence of topics

• There may only be 2 topics per sentence, e.g.,
• tm2 tm2 tm1
• JOHNi, GIRL-group, MARY IX-3rdi LIKE.
• As for John, as for girls, it is Mary that he
  likes.

16
Licit combinations of topics

• Aarons 1994, 181

17
Wh-word in topic positionA WH-question word can
be topicalized as well

• Inherent wh-marking (slightly lowered brows) are
  retained, and combined with topic marking (raised
  chin, slight tensing of the muscles of the upper
  cheeckbone)
• Aarons 1994, 150

18
Topicalization cross-linguistically

• In Israeli Sign Language (ISL), there are topics,
  too, but with no consistent intonational phrase
  marking. This circumstance seems to indicate that
  the non-manual marking has more to do with the
  pragmatics of information packaging and not so
  much with the syntax.
• In DGS, as far as I can tell, topicalization is
  quite similar to ASL.
• Topicalization in TID?

19
Information packaging in ASL

• According to Wilbur (1991, ff), in ASL,
• topic/given info is S-initial and
• focus/new info is S-final
• She claims that, overall, in ASL surface WO is
  primarily determined by discourse factors. Word
  order in ASL follows prosodic needs, namely that
  focus receive prominence which is best expressed
  in S-final position.
• Evidence for this claim comes from 3
  constructions

20
Phonological prominence of S-final focus3
constructions as evidence

• 1. So-called Rhetorical question formation
  (relate to phrases, max projections)
• A WH-question with following answer. Both parts
  (the question and the answer) receive a
  particular non-manual marking, but form a single
  prosodic contour.
• rqu hn
• LEE PAINT WHAT? CHAIR
• Comparable to English WH cleft-sentence
• What Lee wants to paint is the chair.

21
Rhetorical question markingrhq feature

• Aarons, 1994, 69

Bahan 1996, 57
22
Rhetorical question marking - Syntactic analysis

• CP
• CP-Spec C'
• WH-XPj
• ME DISLIKE WHAT IP C
• P
• IP-Spec I'
• SUBJ NPi
• JOHN POSS TIE
• I VP
• F
• VP-Spec V'
• V XP
• ti tj

Non-focused WH-phrase br
IP serves as Focus Phrase
Focus feature
Subj moves to structural Focus position in SpecIP
RhQ-Sentence rhq
hn ME DISLIKE WHAT JOHN POSS
TIE What I dislike is John's tie
Subject
Predicate
23
Rhetorical vs. Normal WH-Questions

• So-called Rhetorical Q
• Br gt hn

• Normal Wh-Q
• Furrowed eyebrows

Aarons 1994, 70
24
Rhetorical Q's as WH-clefts behave alike in Sls
and SpLs

• foregrounding operation, brings focused element
  outside the main clause
• WH-cleft must contain primary stress
• WH-clefts contain a presupposition, i.e., an open
  proposition which contains a variable
• The focused phrase fills in the information left
  open in the open proposition.
• rqu hn
• LEE PAINT WHAT? CHAIR

Open proposition operator variable
25
Phonological prominence of S-final focus3
constructions as evidence

• 2. So-called Doubling structures
• A focussed element appears in S-final as well as
  in its normal S-position.
• neg
• ANN CAN'T READ CAN'T
• Doubling always relates to heads, not to phrases.
  It serves emphasis of the element and is carried
  out with more muscle tonus

26
Characteristics of doubling structures

• Double occurs S-final
• It doubles an X, not an XP
• Restriciton on only 1 double per S
• The twin cannot be in a syntactic island (e.g., a
  relative clause), see expl. below
• Only a wh-double can occur n direct Wh-Question
• WOMAN WILL COME TOMORROW WILLRel-Cl NAME SUE

27
Structure of doubling construction

• In a syntactic analysis, doubling works like
  WH-question formation. In Lillo-Martin's analysis
  (Petronio and Lillo-Martin) analysis, C is
  head-final. This is the position of the doubled
  element which functions as a focus operator. It
  is base-generated in this position. The original
  element is in SpecCP. Both check features at the
  level of Logical form (LF).

28
Petronio's PS for doubling

• CP
• Spec C'
• TP C
• Sagr
• Oagr
• VP

Position of the base- generated double (Same
position as the wh-double in wh-questions with
two wh-elements)
29
Expl sentence for a focus double

• Petronio and L-Martin 1997, 32

30
Phonological prominence of S-final focus3
constructions as evidence

• 3. A focused element appears S-finally.
• This is the normal case of S-final focus. It is
  not a particular construction like (12).

31
Summary chapter 22

• SLs use many movement operations in order to
  attain discourse and pragmatic effects.
• The analyses remain in the scope of what is also
  known from Spoken Languages. There is no need for
  special mechanisms
• Instead, they fall within the realm of
  universals regarding the ways in which sentences
  achieve different informtional goals. (Sandler
  Lillo-Martin 2006, 430)

32
References

• Aarons, Debra (1994). Aspects of the syntax of
  American Sign Language. PhD dissertation. Boston
  University.
• Bahan, Benjamin (1996). Non-manual realization of
  agreement in American Sign Language. PhD
  dissertation. Boston University.
• Sandler, Wendy and Lillo-Martin, Diane (2006)
  Sign Language and Linguistic Universals.
  Cambridge CUP.

33
Yes-no question marking

• Aarons 1994, 68

34
Wh-question marking

• Aarons 1994, 70