Anaphora, Role shift and Polyphony in Belgian Sign Language (LSFB)
Laurence Meurant
Université de Namur, Belgique
The three notions that are dealt with in this study are anaphora, role shift and polyphony, the
first two demonstrating marked differences between the various linguistic theories that deal
with them. The notion of anaphora, used for the description of both oral and signed languages,
covers a variety of phenomena, due to the different approaches adopted, deriving from both
syntax (Zribi-Hertz, 1996) and from semantics (Kleiber, 1994) and concerned with both
sentence analysis (Engberg-Pedersen, 1993, 1996) and discursive construction (Morgan,
2000). The second notion (role shift) seems to have a more stable referent, since it describes a
phenomenon, proper to signed languages, that allows the signer to take on, using his or her
own body, the role of a character other than the sender of the message. But opposing
theoretical views are revealed by the variety of terms employed to refer to it: in English, role
play (Loew, Kegl and Poizner, 1997), role shift (Lillo-Martin, 1995), constructed action
(Metzger, 1994) and shifted reference (Engberg-Pedersen, 1993, 1995; Morgan, 2002); in
French, role play (jeu de rôle) and particularly personal transfer (transfert personnel) (Cuxac,
2000). The object of study was usually, on the one hand, the iconic characteristics of role
playing, role shifting or personal transfer and, on the other, the central function of reference
shifting in reported speech and in the narrative organization of discourse. But EngbergPedersen is one of the few to undertake a description of the grammatical and syntactic
functioning of this phenomenon that is peculiar to signed languages, linking it to her
morphological notion of locus and to her description of double-agreement verbs.
This work, based on the analysis of videotaped Belgian Sign Language narratives, elicited by
illustrated stories, has a dual purpose.
One aim is to define anaphora and role shift according to their grammatical status, and
to show how the morphological specificity of the role shift forms makes them especially
suitable for the construction of anaphoric syntactic structures. This stage constitutes the
original contribution of the study, as most studies of these two linguistic notions are primarily
semantic and discursive, and not syntactic. It is proposed, on the one hand, to examine, in the
light of the notion of personal value, the difference between verbal forms in which the signer
is said to take on the role of a character, and corresponding forms which do not show the same
features. Following and pursuing the theoretical perspective established by Coursil (2000),
role shift forms can be specified morphologically as person neutralization forms. On the
other hand, syntax will be considered as the product of interaction between two fundamental
(and clinically established) capacities, namely identification and segmentation, or, in other
words, as resulting from the integration of several units, making them share constraints.
Consistent with this theoretical framework, anaphora will be viewed as one kind of
syntactic relation, characterized by the following constraints: one unit blocks the possibility
of the other entering freely other phrases and, in this way, makes it dependent on the term it is
constrained by and related to. Three structures of this type will be studied.
Our second purpose is to show how the three structures studied, because they are based
on role shifts, i.e. person neutralization forms, following the reasoning, elicit polyphonic
effects that can be analyzed at the level of discourse, and that can be distinguished from direct
reported speech. The notion of person neutralization enables us to apply Ducrot’s distinction
between speaker (locuteur) and utterer (énonciateur) to LSFB (and SL in general), and, even
if this opposition is not iconically so clearly established, to consider as strictly separate
phenomena role shifts in direct reported speech and in this particular kind of utterance, based
on ‘person neutralization’ forms.
Three syntactic constructions will give the opportunity to examine the relation between
anaphora, role shift and polyphony. The first one is composed of two verbal constituents,
signed successively, but both representing the same action, involving two characters: the
verbs successively take on each character’s role. This can be illustrated with an utterance like
MARIE – CAROLINEa – shiftLOOKa – -aLOOKshift (literally: ‘Marie is looking at Caroline who is
looked at by Marie’). The second construction is composed of three verbal components,
describing the same action, involving one character. The first and the third terms are identical,
and are characterized by the fact that they incorporate one or two classifiers. They are situated
on each side of the central constituent, which shows the role shift of the character that the
classifier of the two other constituents refers to. This second structure may be seen, for
instance, in TWO BOYS – MOVE FORWARDclV – shiftWALK – MOVE FORWARDclV (‘Two boys move
forward walking’). Finally, the third construction represents the same action, performed by a
single character, with two verbal constituents which are signed simultaneously. This case is
described in Morgan (2000), for British Sign Language, as a sample of overlapping between
fixed referential space and shifted referential space. A first constituent is signed with a role
shift (that is in a person neutralization form), and is maintained during the production of a
second term, which involves a classifier, referring to the same antecedent as the person
neutralization form articulated simultaneously. For instance, MAN – shiftPUT ONE’S FINGERS IN
ONE’S EARS – MOVE FORWARDclII (‘The man put his fingers in his hears while moving
forward’).
In each of these constructions, the anaphoric syntax, by which an internal reference to
characters is built up, depends on the use of person neutralization forms (i.e. morphologically
reduced forms) creating the iconic ‘role shift’ effect. In these three constructions, also, the
person neutralization form creates a polyphonic ‘point of view’ effect, described in EngbergPedersen (1995) and associated with the utterer in Ducrot (1984). Each described structure
brings its own utterer-polyphony – which in any case can be confused with direct reported
speech, since none of these points of view is associated with the personal forms of the
dialogue (1st and 2nd) –: a reciprocity of two utterers, an alternation between an external and
an internal utterer or a permanent utterer, appears within the speaker’s speech.
The theoretical suggestion to consider role shift, out of direct reported speech, as a person
neutralization form allows morphological, syntactical, as well as pragmatical, analysis of
LSFB constructions to be linked with consistency.
References
ALLAIRE, S., Le modèle syntaxique des systèmes corrélatifs. Étude en français moderne, Lille,
service de reproduction des thèses, Université de Lille 3, 1982.
BOUVET, D., Approche polyphonique d’un récit produit en langue des signes française,
Presses universitaires de Lyon, 1996.
CUXAC, C., “La langue des signes française. Les voies de l’iconicité”, in Faits de langue,
n° 15-16, 2000.
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, E., “Point of view expressed through shifters” in EMMOREY K.,
REILLY J. (eds), Language, Gesture and Space, Lawrence Erlbrawn Associates, 1995.
DUCROT, O., Le dire et le dit, Paris, Seuil, 1989.
ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, E., Space in Danish Sign Language : The semantics and morphosyntax
of the use of space in a visual language, Hamburg, Signum-Press, 1993.
KLEIBER, G., Anaphores et pronoms, Louvain-la-Neuve, Duculot, 1994.
LILLO-MARTIN, D., “The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language”, in EMMORY,
K., REILLY, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, Lawrence Erlbrawn Associates, 1995.
LOEW, R., KEGL, J. and POIZNER, H., “Fractionation of the Components of Role Play in a
Right-Hemispheric Lesioned Signer”, Aphasiology 11: 3, 1997, 263-281.
METZGER, M., “Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language”, in
LUCAS (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf communities, Washington, Gallaudet University Press,
255-271.
MEURANT, L., “L’anaphore syntaxique redéfinie au regard d’une langue des signes ”,
Silexicales (French Sign Language linguistics. Current Researchs), in preparation, 2004.
MORGAN, G., “Discourse cohesion in sign and speech”, The International Journal of
Bilingualism, 4: 3, 2000.
MORGAN, G., “Children’s encoding of simultaneity in British Sign Language narratives”, Sign
Language and Linguistics, 5: 2, 2002, 131-165.
ZRIBI-HERTZ, A., L’anaphore et les pronoms, Lille, Presses universitaires du Septentrion,
1996