Sign language anaphora is often realized very differently from its spoken language counterpart. In simple cases, an antecedent is associated with a position or “locus” in signing space, and an anaphoric link is obtained by pointing toward that locus to recover its semantic value. This mechanism may sometimes be an overt realization of coindexation in formal syntax and semantics. I discuss two kinds of insights that sign language research can bring to the foundations of anaphora. First, in some cases the overt nature of indices in sign language allows one to bring overt evidence to bear on classic debates in semantics. I consider two: the availability of situation-denoting variables in natural language and the availability of binding without c-command. Second, in some cases sign language pronouns raise new challenges for formal semantics. Loci may function simultaneously as formal variables and as simplified depictions of what they denote, requiring the construction of a formal semantics with iconicity to analyze their properties.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Bahan B, Kegl J, MacLaughlin D, Neidle C. 1995. Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America (FLSM VI) L Gabriele, D Hardison, R Westmoreland 21–12 Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguist. Club [Google Scholar]
  2. Bhatt R, Pancheva R. 2006. Conditionals. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax M Everaert, H van Riemsdijk 1638–87 Boston/Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  3. Bittner M. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI RL Hastings, B Jackson, Z Zvolenszky 36–55 Ithaca, NY: CLC
  4. Cooper R. 1983. Synthese Language Library, vol. 21: Quantification and Syntactic Theory Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  5. Cuxac C. 1999. French sign language: proposition of a structural explanation by iconicity. Gesture-Based Communication in Human–Computer Interaction: Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop A Braort, R Gherbi, S Gibet, D Teil, J Richardson 165–84 Berlin: Springer
  6. Dekker P. 2004. Cases, adverbs, situations and events. Context Dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning H Kamp, BH Partee 383–404 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  7. Elbourne P. 2005. Situations and Individuals Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  8. Emmorey K. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  9. Emmorey K. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 369:20130301 [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 11:337–62 [Google Scholar]
  11. Finer D. 1985. The syntax of switch-reference. Linguist. Inq. 16:35–55 [Google Scholar]
  12. Geach P. 1962. Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldin-Meadow S, Brentari D. 2016. Gesture, sign and language: the coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behav. Brain Sci.In press
  14. Greenberg G. 2013. Beyond resemblance. Philos. Rev. 122215–87
  15. Groenendijk JAG, Stokhof MJB. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguist. Philos. 14:39–100 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heim I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst
  17. Heim I. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguist. Philos. 13:137–77 [Google Scholar]
  18. Heim I. 1991. The first person Class handouts, MIT, Cambridge, MA
  19. Heim I. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. Phi-Theory: Phi-Features Across Modules and Interfaces D Harbour, D Adger, S Bejar 35–56 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Heim I, Kratzer A. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  21. Hockett CF. 1966. What Algonquian is really like. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 31:59–73 [Google Scholar]
  22. Iatridou S. 1994. On the contribution of conditional then. Nat. Lang. Semant. 2:171–99 [Google Scholar]
  23. Izvorski R. 1996. The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 26), ed. K Kusumoto 133–47 Amherst, MA: Grad. Linguist. Stud. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jacobson P. 1999. Towards a variable free semantics. Linguist. Philos. 22:117–84 [Google Scholar]
  25. Jacobson P. 2012. Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: the case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. J. Semant. 29:305–43 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kamp H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal Methods in the Study of Language JAG Groenendijk, TMV Janssen, MJB Stokhof 277–322 Amsterdam: Math. Cent. [Google Scholar]
  27. Koulidobrova H. 2011. SELF: intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL Work. pap., Dep. Linguist., Cent. Conn. State Univ., New Britain [Google Scholar]
  28. Kratzer A. 1991. Modality. Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research A von Stechow, D Wunderlich 639–50 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  29. Kratzer A. 2009. Making a pronoun: fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguist. Inq. 40:187–237 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kuhn J. 2016. ASL loci: variables or features?. J. Semant. 33:449–91 [Google Scholar]
  31. Liddell SK. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  32. Lillo-Martin D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer Acad.
  33. Lillo-Martin D, Klima ES. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, vol. 1: Linguistics SD Fischer, P Siple 191–210 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Lillo-Martin D, Meier RP. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Theor. Linguist. 37:95–141 [Google Scholar]
  35. Meier R. 2012. Language and modality. Handbook of Sign Language Linguistics R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 574–601 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  36. Neidle C, Kegl J, McLaughlin D, Bahan B, Lee RG. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  37. Nouwen R. 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context PhD thesis, Grad. Sch. Linguist., Univ. Utrecht, Utrecht, Neth.
  38. Partee BH. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. J. Philos. 70:601–9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Partee BH. 1978. Bound variables and other anaphors. Theoretical Issues In Natural Language Processing 2 (TINLAP-2) DL Waltz, 79–85 Urbana: Univ. Ill. [Google Scholar]
  40. Quine WV. 1960. Variables explained away. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 104:343–47 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  42. Schlenker P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: a cross-categorial approach PhD thesis, Dep. Linguist., MIT, Cambridge, MA
  43. Schlenker P. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguist. Philos. 26:29–120 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schlenker P. 2004. Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Res. Lang. Comput. 2:417–62 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schlenker P. 2011a. Iconic agreement. Theor. Linguist. 37:223–34 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlenker P. 2011b. Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Linguist. Philos. 34:341–95 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schlenker P. 2011c. Quantifiers and variables: insights from sign language (ASL and LSF). The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context, and Models BH Partee, M Glanzberg, J Skilters 22 Manhattan, KS: New Prairie [Google Scholar]
  48. Schlenker P. 2013a. Temporal and modal anaphora in sign language (ASL). Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 31:207–34 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schlenker P. 2013b. Anaphora: insights from sign language (summary). The Language–Cognition Interface: Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Linguistics SR Anderson, J Moeschler, F Reboul 14 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
  50. Schlenker P. 2014. Iconic features. Nat. Lang. Semant. 22:299–356 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schlenker P. 2015. Gestural presuppositions. Snippets 30:9–11 [Google Scholar]
  52. Schlenker P. 2016. Featural variables. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 34:1067 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schlenker P. Visible meaning: sign language and the foundations of semantics. Theor. Linguist. Forthcoming
  54. Schlenker P, Lamberton J, Santoro M. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguist. Philos. 36:91–149 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schlenker P, Mathur G. 2013. A strong crossover effect in ASL (squib). Snippets 27:16–18 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sharvit Y. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguist. Philos. 31:353–95 [Google Scholar]
  57. von Stechow A. 2004. Binding by verbs: tense, person and mood under attitudes. The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery H Lohnstein, S Trissler 431–88 Berlin/New York: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  58. Stone M. 1997. The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense Inst. Res. Cogn. Sci. rep 97–06 Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  59. Taub SF. 2001. Language from the Body Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  60. Winston E. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. Language, Gesture, and Space K Emmorey, JS Reilly 87–114 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error