Prominence-oriented view

Another account concerning the interpretation of pronominal IX is the one proposed by Barberà (2012). It differs from the abovementioned approaches in analyzing corpus data (i.e. a small-scale corpus) from Catalan Sign language (LSC) and providing empirical data on a global discourse. In this data-driven approach, Barberà proposes that LSC does not make grammatical distinctions on the lateral plane of the signing space. Thus, the association of a referent with the ipsilateral or contralateral side of the signing space does not contribute to its propositional meaning. Therefore, the spatial direction of pronominal IX is suggested not to have any importance for the identification of its referent. The referent is rather associated with an abstract point (p) or a spatial morpheme which is realized via (non)manual markers and discourse related properties, such as discourse topicality, are considered crucial for its identification by pronominal IX.A referent is considered to be the discourse topic when it is in the focus of a current discourse and has the most potentiality to be referred back to and is therefore the most noteworthy and prominent entity (Barberá 2012: 323).

Importantly, discourse topicality is suggested to be determined by the interaction of the previous and current context of an utterance.

The implementation of prominence and its assignment in discourse is done via a hybrid model merging Discourse Representation Theory (DRT) (Heim 1982; Kamp & Reyle 1993) and Centering Theory (CT) (Grosz, Weinstein & Joshi 1995; Walker, Joshi & Prince 1998). To understand the following discussion, a brief overview of CT is crucial; This theory offers rules and constraints which are claimed to predict both the most salient/prominent entity in a particular utterance and the form of the referring expression to which the most

44

salient entity should refer in a coherent discourse segment. In particular, a speaker plans an utterance (Un) in such a way that this utterance forms a continuity with the previous utterance (Un-1) as well as signaling the likelihood of each entity, i.e. center in (Un), to be the source of continuity in the following utterance (Un+1).

The main claims of the CT are the following: (i) the entities realized in an utterance (forward looking centers: Cf) are partially ranked according to their salience potential to be referred in the subsequent utterance, (ii) the most highly ranked element in the set of forward looking centers is the preferred center (Cp), (iii) the most salient entity (Cp) is usually the backward-looking center (Cb) of the following utterance and determines the form of Cb as a pronoun or a zero form depending on the language type. According to the CT, discourse entities (Cf) are ranked based on their salience which is determined by a number of universal and language specific factors such as surface order position/order of mention in the sentences, grammatical configuration of the constituents, information structure (i.e.

topichood) and thematic roles.

The technicalities of Barberà’s hybrid approach will be spelled out only briefly in comparison with S&O’s analysis, but will not be developed further as the current work does not focus on connected discourse. The two main differences between the approaches are listed below:

i. DRs or variables are not structured as opposed to S&O’s representations which are structured reflecting the divisions in the signing space (see Figure 2.5).

ii. The notion of prominence is integrated into the DRS via topical variables, determined by the assignment of the superindex (see explanation below) to the variables which satisfy the prominence condition spelled with the support of CT.

Pronominal IX, irrespective of its spatial direction, is interpreted towards the DR

45

satisfying a set of pronominal construction rules as well as discourse topicality condition presented in (7). In S&O's account, the notion of prominence is not integrated to the DRT at all.

Given the premises of the CT, Barberá proposed a DR to be linked to a discourse topic of a particular discourse fragment in cases when it verifies the formula (from Barberá 2012:336) in (7) irrespective of the DR’s scope. According to this formula, it is the intersection between the backward looking center DR_b (U_k) of the previous discourse and the preferred center of the current utterance DR_p (U_k), that is proposed to characterize DR_p for that specific fragment of the discourse. As prominence is considered to be a dynamic concept the given formula should be satisfied in each of the new fragments of a discourse.

(7) Discourse topicality condition for LSC DR_b(U_n)=DR_b(U_n-1) ∧ DR_b(U_n)=DR_p(U_n)

The stretch of discourse (from Barberá 2012: 337) given in (9) is modeled in Figure 2.5 in two steps. First, the initial sentence (i.e. I will offer the pen-drive to someone, since he/she/his person always works with computers.) is formed and unstructured DRs (i.e. x, y, z) are represented in the upper part of the DRS. The second step includes integration of pronominal IX occurring in the second and third sentences of (9) (i.e. I find it very adequate to offer the pen-drive to him/her. And he will be happy and enjoy it a lot.) into DRS. At this stage, the assignment of the prominence status to these sentences is verified by the formula in (7). Construction rules for pronouns³¹ are used and their identity relation with the DRs is

31 For the details of application and a whole list of these rules the reader is referred to Barberà (2012)

46

determined. Then the prominence formula in (8), is verified and the variables are assigned some sort of diacritics referred as superindex satisfying this condition, (i.e. z and w). As can be seen the most prominent DRs are indicated via little p in the structure of DRS (i.e. Step 2 in Figure 2.5).

(8) Discourse topicality conditions for a stretch of discourse in (9)

Importantly the identity relation between variables and DRs is proposed to take place as a coincidence relation in spatial location. But this relation was not found to be sufficient to capture cases where pronominal IX and the respective DR³² do not have a one-to-one mapping in terms of location. So as opposed to S&O, Barberá’s model captures the cases where there is no direct mapping with a DR and pronominal IX.

32 The cases where pronominal IX is not overtly linked to the spatially anchored antecedent, it is directed to the neutral are in the space or is unaccentuated.

47

(9) A stretch of discourse containing pronominal expressions in LSC

Figure 2.5: Steps of derivation applied to the discourse in (9)

Coming back to the local contexts with referentially unanchored pronominal IX and given the importance attributed to the prominence by Barberà’s view, it can be assumed that in hypothetical cases like (10) the interpretation of IX will depend on the prominence (or salience), (i.e. topicality) of the potential referents irrespective of their overt/covert spatial association. Thus, in case COWORKER is because a topic of the sentences pronominal IX will be identified as this referent.

(10) TOMORROW BOSS COWORKER MEET. IXR/L TALK WANT.

‘Tomorrow the boss meets the coworker. She wants to talk.’

48

However, the question whether topicality is the only determinant of the relative salience of a referent in global and local contexts remains. This issue is approached in Section 2.3. Before ending this section, Table 2.2 provides a comparative overview of the three approaches discussed as their premises will be relevant in the following chapters (Chapter 3-5). These approaches differ with respect to the domain and language of focus, as well as the type and nature of the data examined. Moreover, they diverge in terms of whether the spatial default is attested and relevant for the interpretation of pronominal IX.In the case of its relevance, it is mainly agreed on that the default is easily overridable and subject to variation. Given the different types of analyzed data, the models either take into consideration only the signing space or they consider pragmatics (i.e. prominence) as a necessary condition for production and interpretation of pronominal IX.

Table 2.2: An overview of the syntax- and discourse-semantics-based approaches on resolution of the pronominal IX

Geraci Steinbach & Onea Barberà

Domain sentence (local) utterance

(local/global)

utterance (global)

Language of focus LIS DGS LSC

Data analyzed simplex & complex sentences

Robustness of defaults subject to variation subject to variation -- Relevance of prominence

for interpretation of IX

not discussed mentioned but not integrated

crucial

Theoretical implementation not developed (extended) DRT DRT+CT

49

The overall picture includes several aspects (listed below). Some of these will be discussed in the following chapters by focusing on local utterance contexts.

i. Comparable data for local and global contexts are needed.

ii. The strength of the spatial defaults is necessary to be tested for comprehension and production (Chapter 3,4).

iii. The factors affecting salience/prominence of referents and hence guiding production of pronominal IX should be identified (Chapter 5).

iv. It is important to determine the interaction of space-related and prominence-related factors governing the interpretation and production of IX.

v. A similar methodology is needed to be used in cross-linguistic studies to allow for a better understanding of the defaults and their interaction with other factors affecting the interpretation of pronominal IX (Chapter 3).

vi. It is crucial to develop a (computational) model which combines all relevant aspects for interpretation of pronominal IX for sign languages.