Shifting contexts – The interpretation of indexicals in role shift
(Language of presentation: English)
In narration, sign languages (SL) frequently make use of role shift (RS), a SL specific kind of reported
discourse (Herrmann/Steinbach 2012, Lillo-Martin 2012). By using non-manual markers, RS offers the
possibility of shifting into the role of the person whose utterance or thought is quoted: The signer
typically turns her upper part of the body and head and breaks the eye contact with the real addressee.
The non-manuals take scope over the whole quoted utterance—and often over the verbum dicendi,
too ((1ab) and (2)). Semantically, RS triggers a context shift leading to the interpretation that the
embedded sentence has been uttered by another signer (e.g. Marie in (1)) in a context c different from
the current context of utterance C. This raises interesting questions concerning the interpretation of
indexicals in RS. Whereas personal indexicals such as IX1 and IX2 must be interpreted relative to the
reported context c, SLs seem to differ regarding the interpretation of local and temporal indexicals
with respect to c or C (Quer 2005/2011, Schlenker 2011).
The analysis of newly elicited data suggest a complex pattern for DGS: Although in the scope of RS,
HERE in (1a) refers to the current context of utterance C (= Göttingen). Analogous to this, TODAY in (2)
cannot mean Wednesday (→ c) but has to be interpreted as Thursday (→ C). However, HERE and TODAY
can be modified by a sign specifying place or day of the reported utterance and then easily shift to c
(see (1b) for HERE). Nevertheless, this pattern is not the same for other DGS indexicals. TOMORROW and
YESTERDAY are generally ambiguous (see (3) for TOMORROW). Again, disambiguation is possible by
adding a specifying item. Finally, NOW has a weak preference towards an interpretation relative to C
although not as strong as HERE and TODAY. Summarizing, whereas personal indexicals must shift,
temporal and local indexicals need not shift and show different preferences for either C or c.
We argue that the behavior of the DGS indexicals is due to different deictic properties of the signs
themselves and the impact of the RS non-manuals. IX1 and IX2 are performed with a movement of the
index-finger towards the signer or addressee. Since the non-manuals are directly related to the loci of
the signer and addressee of the reported utterance, IX1 and IX2 have to shift to c (see (4ab) for the
semantic forms). In contrast, HERE and TODAY are not explicitly affected by the non-manuals: They
always refer iconically to the locus and the time of C because of two features (see Fig. 1):
• a downward movement
• the index finger pointing towards the current locus
Thus, they have a strong iconic preference (SIP) for C, i.e. ‘TODAY >SIP today’ and ‘HERE >SIP here’ in
(4cd). NOW is also performed with a downward movement towards the current locus but lacks a
handshape with a deictic potential (see Fig. 2). Consequently, NOW has only a weak iconic preference
(WIP) for C (4e). TOMORROW and YESTERDAY show no preference at all (4fg) as both signs are produced
with the extended thumb relative to a metaphorical horizontal time line (see Fig. 2 for TOMORROW).
Since neither the time line nor the handshape have iconic deictic properties, both indexicals can be
linked to C or c.
Examples (German Sign Language, DGS)
(1)
[uttered in Göttingen]
3a<
>3b
a. PAST M-A-R-I-E HANNOVER IXL SAY : HERE IX1 LIKE LIVE
‘When Marie was in Hannover she said that she wanted to live in Göttingen.’
3a<
(2)
(3)
>3b
b. PAST M-A-R-I-E HANNOVER IXLSAY : HANNOVER AREA HERE IX1 LIKE LIVE
‘When Marie was in Hannover she said that she wanted to live in Hannover.’
[uttered on Thursday]
3a<
>3b
PAST WEDNESDAY M-A-R-I-E IX3a T-I-M IX3b BOTH EAT IXL IX3a 1-INFORM-2 : IX1 LIKE TODAY DANCE
‘On Wednesday, Marie and Tim ate together and she said that she would like to go dancing on Thursday.’
[uttered on Saturday]
3a<
>3b
a. PAST THURSDAY M-A-R-I-E IX3a K-I-M IX3b MEET IX3a TELL : IX1 LIKE TOMORROW MOVIES GO
‘On Thursday, Marie and Kim met and she told him that she would like to go to the movies on Friday/on Sunday.’
3a<
>3b
b. PAST THURSDAY M-A-R-I-E IX3a K-I-M IX3b MEET IX3a TELL : IX1 LIKE TOMORROW FRIDAY MOVIES GO
‘On Thursday, Marie and Kim met and she told him that she would like to go to the movies on Friday.’
3a<
(4)
>3b
c. PAST THURSDAY M-A-R-I-E IX3a K-I-M IX3b MEET IX3a TELL : IX1 LIKE TOMORROW SUNDAY MOVIE GO
‘On Thursday, Marie and Kim met and she told him that she would like to go to the movies on Sunday.’
a. ⟦IX1⟧ = si(gner)
b. ⟦IX2⟧ = ad(dresse)
c. ⟦TODAY⟧ = λe.τ(e) ⊂ ιt.DAY-UTTERANCE(t, x) & x ∈ {NOW, now} & NOW >SIP now
d. ⟦HERE⟧ = λe.τ(e) ⊂ ιl.PLACE-UTTERANCE(l, x) & x ∈ {HERE, here} & HERE >SIP here
e. ⟦NOW⟧ = λe.τ(e) o x & x ⊂ {NOW, now} & NOW >WIP now
f. ⟦YESTERDAY⟧ = λe.τ(e) ⊂ ιt.DAY-BEFORE(t, x) & x ∈ {NOW, now}
g. ⟦TOMORROW⟧ = λe.τ(e) ⊂ ιt.DAY-AFTER(t, x) & x ∈ {NOW, now}
Explanation: si = signer of c; ad = addresse of c; NOW = time of C; now = time of c;
HERE = place of C; here = place of c (cf. Eckardt 2011).
Fig. 1: TODAY (left picture) and HERE (right picture) in DGS, taken from Kestner (2009)
Fig. 2: TOMORROW (left picture) and NOW (right pictures) in DGS, taken from Kestner (2009)
References  Eckardt, R. (2011). Particles as Speaker Indexicals in Free Indirect Discourse. In: L. Hogeweg & E. McCready (eds.). Particles.
Special Issue of Linguistische Datenverarbeitung. Submitted. [available on author’s homepage]  Herrmann, A./Steinbach, M. (2012).
Quotation in Sign Languages – A Visible Context Shift. In: I. van Alphen & I. Buchstaller (eds.). Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and Cross
Disciplinary Perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 203-228  Kestner, K. (2009). Das große Wörterbuch der Deutschen Gebärdensprache.
Schauenburg: VKK.  Lillo-Martin, D. (2012). Utterance Reports and Constructed Action. In: M. Steinbach, R. Pfau, & B. Woll (eds.). Sign
Language. Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 365-387  Quer, J. (2005). Context Shift
and Indexical Variables in Sign Languages. In: Proceedings of SALT 15, 134-151  Quer, J. (2011). Reporting and Quoting in Signed Discourse.
In: E. Brendel, J. Meibauer, & M. Steinbach (eds.). Understanding Quotation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 277-302.  Schlenker, P. (2011).
Semantics and Sign Language. ESSLLI 2011, Ljubljana, 1–5 August 2011.