(NON-)SPECIFICITY MARKING IN RESTRICTIVE RELATIVE CLAUSES
IN CATALAN SIGN LANGUAGE (LSC)
INTRODUCTION. Although we already count on some previous work on relative clauses in
signed languages (Branchini 2006; Branchini et al. 2007; Pfau & Steinbach 2005), the
codification of the different types of specificity that relative clauses encode has not been
studied yet. Moreover, (non-)specificity marking, which has been studied in a broad
variety of spoken languages (von Heusinger 2011; Matthewson 1998), is still an
understudied field in signed languages. In this paper, we offer a descriptive analysis of the
expression of specificity in restrictive relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language (LSC).
DATA. From a syntactic point of view, relative clauses in LSC are circumnominal (1a),
instead of adnominal (1b), which appears to be the strategy used in the most thoroughly
studied languages. This means that the pivot noun phrase appears inside the relative
clause. As shown in (2), LSC relative clauses cannot occur internal to the matrix clause;
instead they must be fronted or postposed. Also, note that the non-manual markers have
scope over the whole relative clause and do not spread beyond this constituent.
From a semantic point of view, LSC shows an overt contrastive marking of the
semantic-pragmatic notions of (non-)specificity by localising the noun phrase on different
regions of the signing space. The frontal plane, which extends parallel to the signer’s body,
is grammatically relevant for the encoding of specificity and the two areas of the frontal
plane, namely upper and lower, are associated with two different interpretations. When
the noun phrase is associated with the lower frontal plane, a specific interpretation arises
(Fig. 1). That is, it denotes a referent known by at least the sender. In contrast, when the
localisation is associated with the upper frontal plane a non-specific reading is available,
meaning that it denotes a referent not known by the sender or the addressee (Fig. 2).
PROPOSAL. After an analysis of a small scale LSC corpus, which includes naturalistic and
elicited data, we propose that relative clauses in LSC encode specificity marking. We show
that three main strategies are used to encode (non-)specificity, as summarised in Fig. 3:
(i) The localisation of the pivot noun phrase on the frontal plane differs according to the
knowledge the signer has of the discourse referent. While in specific relative clauses the
pivot is strongly associated with the lower frontal plane (that is, with a tensed realisation
of the movement directed towards a concrete locus in signing space), non-specific ones are
localised on the upper frontal plane, but they are weakly localised (that is, with a relaxed
and non-tensed realisation to a bigger and wide-spread locus).
(ii) Different non-manuals codify the degree of knowledge of the discourse referent.
Squinted eyes spread over relative clauses when the specific pivot denotes shared
information. When the pivot denotes a specific but non-shared discourse referent, the
signer uses eyes wide open. Non-specificity occurs with sucked cheeks and a shrug. The
weak localisation on the upper frontal plane co-occurs with a non-fixed eye gaze towards
the locus.
(iii) LSC relative clauses may require either an overt or covert nominalizer, which is
instantiated by a sign glossed as MATEIX (‘same one’). However, this sign only appears in
context of specificity when the information is shared among the participants. Two other
signs, glossed as CONCRET (‘concrete’) and REQUERIMENT (‘requirement’), which denote
an established subset, appear in both specific and non-specific contexts when the
information is non-shared. The use of lexical signs appears to be non-compulsory.
CONCLUSIONS. In this paper we shed new light on the syntax-semantics interface of sign
languages, and more concretely on relative clauses in an understudied language, such as
LSC. We investigate three main strategies that distinguish different (non-)specificity and
(non-)shared information marking: spatial localisation, non-manual markers and the use
of lexical signs.
EXAMPLES AND FIGURES
(1)
(2)
rel
a. [CAT FEATURE OBEDIENT REQUERIMENT] IX1 WANT BUY
LSC
b. I want to buy [a cat [that is obedient]]
English
a. *JOAN [BOOK YESTERDAY BUY] BRING NOT
in situ
rel
b. [BOOK YESTERDAY BUY] JOAN BRING NOT
Joan hasn’t brought the book that he bought yesterday
fronted
rel
c. JOAN BRING NOT [BOOK YESTERDAY BUY]
Fig 1. Localisation of specific NPs
Spatial
localisation
Specific
NPs
Nonspecific
NPs
Shared
info
Nonshared
info
Lower and strong
localisation
Upper and weak
localisation
postposed
Fig 2. Localisation of non-specific NPs
Non-manual
markers
Head tilt
Squinted eyes
Head tilt
Open eyes
Lower cheeks, shrug,
not-fixed eye gaze
(Non-compulsory)
lexical signs
MATEIX
CONCRET
REQUERIMENT
Fig 3. Strategies for (non-)specificity marking
REFERENCE LIST
Branchini, C. 2006. On relativization and Clefting in Italian Sign Language LIS. Doctoral dissertation. Università
di Urbino.
Branchini et al. 2007. Relatively similar: Relative clause typology and sign languages. Paper presented at the
2nd conference of the Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo). Lille, May.
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. In K. von Heusinger & C. Maienborng & P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An
International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1024-1057.
Matthewson, Lisa 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague:
Holland Academic Graphics.
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2005. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and
reconstruction. In Bateman, L. & C.Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35),
Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, 507-521.