Syntax-based approach

The account by Geraci (2014) is not primarily concerned with the resolution of pronominal reference but rather focuses on the spatial anchoring of sentential arguments which has implications for pronominal resolution at least at the level of local contexts, and hence is of crucial importance for the present discussion. According to this view the distribution of R-loci in Italian Sign Language (LIS), which is predominantly an SOV language, is determined by sentential arguments (i.e. subject, object) through a process called spatialization which operates parallel to linearization in spoken languages. While

31

linearization determines the linear order of the arguments, spatialization maps the arguments onto the signing space. These two processes are considered to be algorithms which work hand in hand at the domain between syntax and phonological form (PF).

In particular, syntactic arguments are systematically mapped to specific locations in the signing space. That is, subjects are realized on the ipsilateral side (closer to the dominant hand) and objects on the contralateral side (distant from the dominant hand) of the horizontal dimension (X-axis) of the signing space depending on the handedness of a signer²⁴. This mapping is observed to take place in a consistent manner in non-canonical word orders (e.g.

topicalization) and this happens irrespective of the phonological properties of the signs (i.e.

both with body-anchored and non-body anchored signs). As mentioned before, Geraci focuses on the sentential level and only briefly mentions the cases where pronominal IX signs were directed to areas, overtly or covertly associated with sentential arguments. Consider the example in (4) adapted from Geraci (2014: 129) where in (a) only the object (i.e. MARIA) is overtly assigned to the contralateral side of the signing space, and (b) where IX sign directed to ipsilateral area is associated with the subject of the previous sentence (i.e. PAOLO) even though previously it was not overtly assigned to the space.

24 Such assignment is considered to be a default in the usage of the abstract space and is claimed to be overridable via interaction with topographic usage of space. Moreover, the pattern of spatializations is shown to be applied not only to the Determiner Phrase (DP) arguments but also to the sentential complements in LIS (Geraci 2014: 130).

32 (4) a. PAOLOMARIAcontra LOVE²⁵

‘Paolo loves Maria.’

b. EVERYDAY IX-3ipsi IX-3contra ipsiCALL_contra

‘He (Paolo) calls her every day.’

The process of R-loci assignment in LIS is considered to be recursive and required by the visual-gestural modality in the usage of abstract space. However, the universality and conceptual necessity of this assignment remain unclear and it is potentially subject to parametric variation in different dialects of LIS (e.g. signers from Turin area of Italy were observed to use regions on Z-axis rather that X-axis) as well as different sign languages²⁶. Moreover, the type/level of the structure to be spatialized (e.g. vP or CP: sentential arguments, or topics) is suggested to be subject to variation as well. Especially the typological variation regarding the usage of the spatial axes and spatial areas assigned to them is of interest here, as it is closely related to the interpretation of pronominal IX in local contexts. Table 2.1 below illustrates typological variation in the usage of spatial areas suggested by Geraci.²⁷

25 Note that the conventions used to indicate lateral areas of the signing space in the examples from Geraci (2014) are adapted to the conventions of this dissertation. In general oppositions in the spatial areas are shown interchangeably as left (L)-right(L) or ipsi(lateral)-contra(lateral).

26 Even though details of the judgments and scenarios used to elicit data are not provided by Geraci, the author acknowledges inconsistency of the participants’ judgments for the spatial pattern.

27 Ipsilateral side (ipsi) is the area close to the dominant hand of the signer, contralateral side (contra) denotes the area close to the non-dominant hand of a signer on X-axis. Proximate and distant are areas on the Z-axis (proximate: close to the body, distant: further away from the body). ABSL: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language, ISL: Israeli Sign Language, LSC: Catalan Sign Language.

33

Table 2.1: (Potential) parametric variation in the usage of spatial areas for spatial mapping of sentential arguments

To recapitulate, Geraci’s account suggests that the lateral axis (i.e. X-axis) in LIS is grammatically structured in such a way that subjects are assigned to the ipsilateral and objects to the contralateral area of the signers depending on their handedness. This way, at least for the sentential level, pronominal IX signs directed to one or the other lateral area should be interpreted as subject or object exclusively. Hence in LIS, it is predicted that in hypothetical contexts such as (5a-b) IXipsi will be identified as subject of the previous sentence, irrespective of its position in the sentence and whether its coreferential referent is overtly localized or not.

(5) a. TOMORROW BOSS COWORKER MEET. IXipsi TALK WANT.

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

topic

b. TOMORROW COWORKER BOSS MEET. IXipsi TALK WANT.

‘It is the coworker who meets the boss tomorrow. She wants to talk.’

Unfortunately, a formal implementation of the localization pattern in LIS is not developed further and the strength and identifiability of the suggested pattern is admitted to

Spatial axes subject object language

X-axis ipsi contra LIS

contra ipsi --

ipsi/contra ipsi/contra LSC

Z-axis proximate distant ISL & ABSL, Turin

dialect of LIS

distant proximate --

distant/proximate distant/proximate -- X-axis and Z axis ipsi/proximate contra/distant --

34

be subject to variation and overridable by default. This, in a way makes one question its grammatical viability of the observed pattern also given that the details of methodology (the type of materials, participant profile etc.) used to elicit data from the signers are not provided.

To underline the relevance of Geraci’s approach once again, it is the resemblance of default pattern observed in LIS to the one proposed for DGS (i.e. subject/first-mentioned referent assigned to the ipsilateral and object/second-mentioned referent assigned to the contralateral side of the signing space) with the difference that for LIS, this pattern was suggested to be primarily determined by syntax.