(In)definite determiners and referential anchoring in sign language
MOTIVATION. Besides the reduced amount of works which describe definiteness marking
on index signs in sign language (Bahan et al. 1995, Tang & Sze 2002), the encoding of
signed indefiniteness is still an understudied area. Traditionally, it has been considered
that noun phrases (NPs) are divided into definites and indefinites, and that the latter are
further categorised into specific and non-specifics, schematised in (1). Definiteness marks
knowledge of the entity the discourse is about by both the sender and the addressee. As
for indefiniteness, while specificity exhibits a sender-addressee asymmetry since only the
sender knows the entity, non-specificity is symmetric since it marks that neither the
sender nor the addressee know the entity. After a detailed and systematic analysis based
on data from a small-scale Catalan Sign Language (LSC) corpus, I propose that the
traditional division among the tripartite structure of noun phrases must be reconsidered
into a dual one, as definites and specific indefinites have the same semantics if referential
anchoring (von Heusinger 2002, Onea & Geist 2011) is considered. Interestingly,
referential anchoring is overtly expressed in the visual-gestural modality by locus
establishment. The two-fold distinction among the referentiality of NPs presented here is
schematised in (2).
PROPOSAL. Both definite NPs and specific indefinites denote an entity which belongs to the
common ground. That is, they are part of the shared contextual information. As for their
semantics, they are represented with a variable that has wide scope over the other
possible embedded variables and it is interpreted outside the operator. The only
difference among the two types of NPs concerns the different conditions they are attached
to: while definite NPs denote an entity that is presupposed to exist in the model, indefinite
NPs assert their existence. The evidence for this claim is shown in the encoding of LSC
data. Both for definite and specific indefinites NPs, the entity is established with a locus
associated on the lower part of the frontal plane, which extends parallel to the body of the
signer. As indicated in the subscripts of the glosses, the definite NP in (3) and the specific
indefinite in (5) are directed to a lower spatial direction (Fig.1 and Fig. 2, respectively). In
contrast, non-specific NPs denote an entity which does not belong to the common ground.
It is asserted into the discourse but it is non-referentially anchored. The articulation for
the establishment of a non-specific NP (7) is directed to the upper frontal plane with a lax
movement (Fig. 3).
From a semantic perspective, the main distinction is that definite and specific are
referentially anchored at the level of discourse representation. They are anchored to
another discourse entity and its interpretation depends on a previously established entity,
which is overtly or covertly expressed. This dependency proposes a pragmatic
enrichment, which introduces a functional dependency into the restrictor of the existential
quantifier and thereby allows for wide scope readings. In the semantic representation of
the definite NP in (3), shown in (4), and the representation for the NP interpreted as
specific indefinite (5), implemented in (6), the Ident condition anchors the variable to a
previous entity. This condition is not present in an intentional context (8). Moreover, the
visual-gestural modality allows an overt marking for this anchoring with the
establishment of the locus, which is covertly expressed in the spoken languages studied to
date.
CONCLUSIONS. This paper presents a new perspective on the localisation of index signs
towards signing space, by introducing the concept of referential anchoring and by
incorporating into the analysis the encoding of definiteness and specificity marking in an
understudied language, such as LSC. The modulations towards signing space are analysed
considering the epistemic status of the entity and its incorporation in the common ground.
EXAMPLES AND FIGURES
(1)
NP = {definite; indefinite {specific; non-specific}}
(2)
NP = {definite/specific indefinite; non-specific indefinite}
(3)
IX3c FOUND ORGANISE MATEIX PERSON-3ip-l HITLER.
‘This was founded by Hitler himself.’
Fig.1 Locus for definite
NP
(4)
x (hitler (x)  Ident(x, anchor)  this(y)  found(x,y))
(5)
____eg:ip-l
IX1 1-OFFER-3ip-l ONE PERSON-3ip-l COMPUTER PEN-DRIVE
_____eg:ip-l
____eg:ip-l
1-OFFER-3ip-l, BECAUSE PERSON-3ip-l ALWAYS++ WORK
THEME IS/SAME COMPUTER.
‘I will offer the pen-drive to someonespec, since he/she
always works with computers.
(6)
Fig. 2 Locus for specific
indefinite NP
x (individual (x)  Ident(x, anchor)  pen-drive (y)  offer(1, x, y))
(7)
____________________________eg:book
_______eg:ip-u
IX1 THINK IX3 BOOK 1-OFFER-3 ADEQUATE PERSON-3ip-u
_eg:cl-u __eg:c
MUST PERSON-3ce LIKE HOBBY IS/SAME TRADITIONAL
PAST SAME/ALWAYS.
‘I think that I would offer this book to someonenon-spec...
It must be someone who likes traditional things.
(8)
Fig. 3 Locus for non-specific
indefinite NP
x (book (x))  ◊ (individual (y)  offer (1, x, y))
REFERENCES
Bahan, Benjamin, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Carol Neidle. 1995. Convergent Evidence for the
Structure of Determiner Phrases in American Sign Language. In FLSM VI. Proceedings of the
Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, vol. 2, 1-12.
Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and definiteness in sentence and discourse structure.
Journal of Semantics 19, 245-274.
Onea, Edgar & Ljudmila Geist. 2011. Indefinite Determiners and the Pragmatics of Referential
Anchoring. International Review of Pragmatics, 3:2, 194-227.
Tang, Gladys, & Felix Sze. 2002. Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality
make a difference. In Richard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos, eds. Modality
and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, 296-320. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.