Signing space-oriented view

Steinbach & Onea (2016), henceforth S&O, propose that introduction of discourse referents (DR) in space and resolution of anaphora (i.e. pronominal reference) depend on morphosyntactic principles²⁸ which govern subdivisions in the horizontal plane of the signing space (H-space). In particular, S&O looking at a small-scale corpus of elicited DGS data (i.e. narrations, interviews, picture descriptions) have observed that the first two DRs are introduced following a recurring pattern such that: “A right-handed signer may localize the first discourse referent in the ipsilateral (default) area in the H-space on its right. The second discourse referent is then localized in the opposite contralateral area of the H-space.”

(S&O 2016: 421). Hence a pronominal IX directed to the ipsilateral side identifies first-introduced referents and a pronominal IX directed to the contralateral side identifies second-introduced referents. The choice of the default region for the first referent is noted to be

28 The authors acknowledge the importance of prominence for anaphora resolution but neither elaborate on it nor implement this notion into their theoretical model.

35

subject to individual differences such as handedness of the signers, place of articulation of the previous sign or register (e.g. in the course of narration, a typical usage of the anaphoric timeline which proceeds from left-to-right might interact with the default assignment of the first referent). Note that, as opposed to Geraci 2014, S&O do not mention the details of the spatialized referents (i.e. grammatical type), but rather only refer to the temporal order of their introduction.

Given these data driven initial observations, S&O suggest that discourse referents are assigned to contrastive regions in the signing space, which can be dynamically and recursively sub-divided into further contrastive areas following the Principle of Maximal Contrast with addition of more referents. This is exemplified in Figure 2.1 below from S&O (2016: 517-518). In Figure 2.1 (a), two DRs (i.e. ‘a’ and ‘b’) are assigned to maximally contrastive areas while in (b) the third referent is added to the region of the first referent creating further subdivisions (RR and LR). Note that the area assigned to the first referent

‘a’ is slightly moved to the left with introduction of the third DR ‘c’ (The numbers in the figure indicate first person (1) and second person (2) interlocutors). According to such spatial structuring, interpretation of pronominal IX signs can be done unambiguously given that each referent is assigned to a unique and distinctive area as the discourse unfolds.

Figure 2.1: Subdivisions in H-space

36

In this account, the main claim is that the structuring of the H-space is determined by the abovementioned binary oppositions. This is in contrast to the approaches which assume no further structuring of the H-space, or rather that any region/point in this space can be used for assignment and retrieval of the referents (e.g. Lillo-Martin & Klima 1990; Wilbur 2008).

Therefore, R-loci occupy uniquely identifiable spatial regions which can be used for unambiguous identification of the referents (i.e. via pronominal signs) associated with those regions. Assignment of DRs to contrastive R-loci is proposed to be realized via various overt manual and non-manual devices as well as what the authors call default operations (i.e.

implicit assignment of DRs to R-loci). In the latter, DRs are not overtly assigned to R-loci but can be identified via (non)manual spatial devices (i.e. pronominal IX)(see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.5 for the details).In DGS example (6) below from S & O (2016: 441), FARMER

is localized on the ipsilateral (i.e. right side) of the signing space via body lean and slight movement of the head to the same area. However, DONKEY is not initially linked to the spatial area, but it is realized on the contralateral (left) side only via final location of the spatial verb

BEAT.

(6) CONDFARMER ipsiOWN ipsiDONKEY - IXipsi BEATcontra

‘If a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it.’

We tested the psychological reality of the abovementioned default pattern in an event-related potential study using a semantic mismatch design (Wienholz et al. 2018a). In this study, we used constructed sentence sets where the first sentence contained DRs with no localization and the second sentence was either consistent or inconsistent with the sentence initial pronominal IX. Semantic mismatch conditions evoked an N400, which provides supporting evidence for DGS signers to be sensitive to the mismatch and that they make use of a default pattern to assign distinct and contrastive referential locations to DRs. Moreover,

37

in mismatch conditions contralateral IX sign engendered a Phonological Mismatch Negativity, which was interpreted as participants’ sensitivity to violations of semantic or phonological expectations.

To recap, the difference in the treatment of defaults by S&O and by Geraci (2014) distinguishes between the two approaches. The former approach is concerned with capturing the resolution of pronominal IX at the level beyond sentence and the premises of the approach are experimentally confirmed. On the other hand, the latter approach is concerned with the sentence level only and does not provide clear methodological details of the collected data.

In terms of the nature of the suggested pattern of referent distribution, S&O propose that it has a discourse-semantic function comparable but not exactly the same with gender in spoken languages. While they do not elaborate on the grammatical or cognitive nature of this pattern, this is currently being addressed by other researchers (Nuhbalaoglu et al. 2016).

In the following, I will give a brief summary of the formal analysis developed by S&O as its implications for the data presented in this dissertation will be discussed in Chapter 6.

In order to correctly read the theoretical implementation of S&O, it is important to understand how they model signing space. In particular, the horizontal dimension (H-space) of the signing space is considered as a physical dimension where the signs are realized.

Anaphoric space (A-space) is proposed to be an analytical/grammatical dimension which corresponds to underspecified semantic representation of H-space. Crucially, being an abstract dimension, individual differences such as physical right and left as well as handedness and the preferences of signers are ignored at this level of representation. A-space reflects the right-left oppositions created either by (non)manual devices like IX signs or default mechanisms via sequences of binary and potentially recursive distinctive features (i.e. R(ight) and (L)eft). Therefore, each DR is assumed to have its own distinct locus

38

assigned either overtly or covertly and defined by features R or L. Otherwise the locus can remain non-distinctive for DRs with low level of prominence.

S&O also consider possible the cases where a group of referents can be assigned to one and the same locus. In this approach, R-loci are proposed to be regions in H-space, which constitute linguistic entities (i.e. features), assigned to DRs by Determiner Phrases at the level of syntax and serve the function to disambiguate DRs by assigning them to respective structured divisions in Discourse Representation Structures (DRS). Consider Figure 2.2 below (from S&O 2016: 525) which represents the placement of DRs x and y in the A-space.

In particular, introduction of the first two DRs creates the first default sub-division (i.e. L-R). In Figure 2.2 the regions are partially separated by a vertical line and the scope of this separation is identified by the length of this line. Further, when an additional DR is introduced to the discourse it is assigned to the R region which is now sub-divided as well into two regions (i.e. RL and RR). Moreover, when the RL region is chosen for introduction of more DRs, in this case x and y, each of those are assigned to contrastive divisions within this area: x to the left side (RLL) and y to right side (RLR). The crucial aspect here is that the spatial subdivisions are always defined in terms of opposition with the previously assigned referents. The degree of granularity of the spatial subdivisions is suggested to be determined by interaction of grammar and context.

Figure 2.2: Contrastive subdivision of spatial areas used for DR disambiguation

39

The discourse-semantic theory developed by S&O is a conservative extension of the classical Discourse Representation Theory (DRT, or dynamic semantics) developed by Kamp (1981) and Kamp & Reyle (1993). It is proposed with the aim to account for the geometrical properties of the visual modality specific concept – the signing space – used in introduction and tracking of DRs. This account incorporates direct mapping of spatial oppositions in the A-space into DRS. In this section, I will only briefly mention the basic concepts of the theory focusing on the representation of it via graphical box notations and not going into the details of its formal semantic language. This is mainly due to the reason that in this dissertation, the aim is to provide empirical evidence for the premises of the theory and suggest some extensions to be implemented in DRS rather than developing a formal implementation to the current version of the theory.

Each of the box notations in Figure 2.3 (from S&O 2016: 435) correspond to the mental representations of each sentence received by an addressee, and named as DRS. The upper part of these boxes corresponds to DRs (i.e. t and m) and the lower part contains the conditions imposed on DRs (i.e. likes (m, t)). Crucially, the upper portion of the DRSs, is structured (i.e. Referent Structures: RS) in such a way that it reflects the oppositions created via sequences of R and L features in A-space for respective DRs.²⁹ This can be seen in the DRS structure formed for the sentence Maria likes the new teacher, where the first-mentioned referent M-A-R-I-A being assigned to the ipsilateral (right) area in the signing space is mapped to the subdivision created by feature R. Likewise, the second-mentioned

29 Note that the structuring of DRs is the most important extension of the theory, however it as well

allows for flat/unstructured upper box for the referents, with the implication that a group of referents can be assigned to one locus and crucially that there are no essential differences in terms of truth conditional values they convey.

40

referent NEW TEACHER being associated with the contralateral (left) area in A-space, is assigned to the leftmost subdivision of the DRS by feature L.³⁰

Figure 2.3: The representation of two DRs in DRS

Figure 2.4 (from S&O 2016: 436) shows additional steps of derivation when a following sentence containing IX directed to the contralateral or left side is introduced into the discourse. This phase of the context update contains three stages: merge, resolution and disambiguation. The sentence containing pronominal IX (i.e. She is smart.) comes with a presupposition (indicated via a dashed box), which includes a variable in the leftmost side of the structure to be resolved. First, the former and the latter DRSs are merged in one.

Second, the presupposition containing the pronominal x is resolved (both t and x assigned to the left subdivision of the DRS). Third, DRs of the former and latter sentences (t and x) are assigned to the same referent, hence reference disambiguation took place. The theory is proposed to be capable of handling an infinite number of sub-divisions of RSs. In addition, this mechanism is suggested to capture cases for overtly as well as covertly localized DRs.

30 Note that the conventions of representing pronominal IX are used as in the original publication by S&O (i.e.

INDEX).

41

Figure 2.4: Merge, resolution and disambiguation stages of derivation in DRS

The underdeveloped aspects of the theory, which will be relevant for further theoretical discussion and for the course of the dissertation, can be listed as the following:

i. There is no explicit way the theory deals with referential ambiguities. The space is considered to be a basic but weak device (i.e. easily overridable), applying only in default cases. However, the cases where there is no one-to-one mapping between a DR and pronominal IX especially in larger contexts, are not approached at all.

42

ii. The prominence of DRs is pre-supposed but is not integrated into the model however, this is expected as the main aim of the theory is to come up with the logical possibilities rather than implement those.

iii. The authors talk about context as a crucial factor to determine the subdivisions in space, however they do not provide relevant data from larger contexts to support their theoretical premises. Hence the empirical power of the theory seems to be weak as it only provides either intuitive examples or very basic sentences without a context.

iv. The authors acknowledge the potential of other factors, such as topographic relations or semantic/iconic principles, to govern the distribution of R-loci in the signing space, but they do not discuss how these can interact with contrastive R-loci.

v. The R-L features are proposed to be assigned at the level of syntax, however integration of their recursive nature at the syntax level is not clearly stated.

In the current work I will mainly investigate the proposed default pattern of referent localization (i.e. first-mentioned DR assigned to the ipsilateral and second-mentioned DR to the contralateral spatial area) and the usage of this default in the resolution of pronominal anaphora. The main focus is to examine how the default pattern is used in comprehension and production of pronominal IX,and whether it interacts with or can be overridden by other prominence related factors in minimally controlled local contexts.

The frequency of usage of the spatial opposition in overt localization of DRs will be discussed with support of the data from two sign languages (i.e. DGS and TİD). Hence, the two aspects listed above (ii and iii), which were not elaborated in theoretical the

43

implementation by S&O, will be addressed in this dissertation, and implications of those on two further aspects (iii, iv) will be discussed in Chapter 6.