Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 45–108 | Cite as

Iconic plurality

  • Philippe SchlenkerEmail author
  • Jonathan Lamberton
Original Research

Abstract

ASL (American Sign Language) can express plurals by repeating a noun, in an unpunctuated fashion, in different parts of signing space. We argue that this construction may come with a rich (and at-issue) iconic component: the geometric arrangement of the repetitions provides information about the arrangement of the denoted plurality; in addition, the number and speed of the repetitions provide information about the size of the denoted plurality. Interestingly, the shape of the repetitions may introduce a new singular discourse referent when a vertex can be inferred to denote a singular object. Thus one may point towards the first or last iteration of a horizontal repetition of BOOK to denote the left- or right-edge of the corresponding row. This yields a remarkable interaction between iconic semantics and standard logical semantics. We show that our analysis extends to ‘punctuated’ repetitions, which involve clearly individuated iterations of a singular noun. While these may initially look like coordinated indefinites, they are better handled by the same iconic framework as plural, unpunctuated repetitions. Some repetition-based mass terms also give rise to iconic effects, and to different readings depending on whether the repetition is continuous, unpunctuated, or punctuated. Our analysis highlights the need for a formal semantics with iconicity to study the integration of such iconic and logical conditions. It also raises a question: can similar facts be found in spoken language when gestures are taken into account? We suggest that several effects can be replicated, especially when one considers examples involving ‘pro-speech gestures’ (= gestures that fully replace some spoken expressions).

Keywords

Sign language semantics Iconicity Plurals Mass terms Unpunctuated repetitions Punctuated repetitions Continuous repetitions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 324115-FRONTSEM (PI: Schlenker). Research was conducted at Institut d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure—PSL Research University. Institut d’Etudes Cognitives is supported by Grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC et ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*. Special thanks to Sam Alxatib, Emmanuel Chemla, Masha Esipova, Jeremy Kuhn, Salvador Mascarenhas, Rob Pasternak, Benjamin Spector, Brent Strickland and Lyn Tieu for helpful remarks on this research, and to Brian Buccola for discussion of an English sentence of interest. We are also grateful to Helen Koulidobrova for sending us her manuscript on ‘Counting Nouns in ASL’ (we received it after the present piece was almost finalized, so systematic comparisons are left for the future). We greatly benefited from the remarkably constructive comments of Malte Zimmermann and three anonymous reviewers (Malte Zimmermann’s suggestions lead to an important improvement of the final analysis). Many thanks to Lucie Ravaux for preparing the bibliography and checking averages.

Authors’ contributions

PS initiated this research, constructed all examples in consultation with JL, and developed all the analysis. JL was the ASL consultant for the initial phase of the work. When it was written, he provided transcriptions and translations, as well as descriptions of the iconic properties of the signs. Any theoretical discussion among co-authors occurred only after the data were collected and the first version of the article was written, and primarily by email because the authors were not on the same continent. The separation between the two phases of the work was intended to minimize the risk the ‘theoretical contamination’ of sign language judgments.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 32816 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 94895 kb)

10988_2018_9236_MOESM3_ESM.docx (200 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 199 kb)

References

  1. Abner, N., Namboodiripad, S., Spaepen, E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Morphology in child homesign: Evidence from number marking. In Slides of a talk given at the 2015 annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  2. Abner, N., & Wilbur, R. (2017). Quantification in American Sign Language. In E. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (Vol. 2). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coppola, M., Spaepen, E., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Communicating about quantity without a language model: Number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology, 67, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daw, N. (2012). How vision works: The physiological mechanisms behind what we see. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deal, A. R. (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 25, 125–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ebert, C. & Ebert, C. (2014). Gestures, demonstratives, and the attributive/referential distinction. In Handout of a talk given at semantics and philosophy in Europe (SPE 7), Berlin.Google Scholar
  9. Emmorey, K., & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages (pp. 222–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldstein, E. (2015). The development of grammatical number and space: Reconsidering evidence from child language and homesign through adult gesture. Manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, S. (1973). Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language, 9, 469–480.Google Scholar
  12. Fricke, E. (2008). Grundlagen einer multimodalen Grammatik des Deutschen: Syntaktische Strukturen und Funktionen. Frankfurt (Oder): Habilitation treatise, European University Viadrina.Google Scholar
  13. Giorgolo, G. (2010). Space and time in our hands. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, G. (2013). Beyond resemblance. Philosophical Review, 122, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Henderson, R. (2016). Pluractional demonstrations. Manuscript. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003127.
  17. Ionin, T., & Matushansky, O. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23, 315–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenkins, R., & Kerr, C. (2013). Identifiable images of bystanders extracted from corneal reflections. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e83325.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koulidobrova, E. (2018). Counting nouns in ASL. Manuscript, Central Connecticut State University. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003871.
  21. Kuhn, J. (2015). Cross-categorial singular and plural reference in sign language. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, J., & Aristodemo, V. (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics & Pragmatics, 10(6).Google Scholar
  23. Ladewig, S. (2011). Syntactic and semantic integration of gestures into speech: Structural, cognitive, and conceptual aspects. PhD thesis, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).Google Scholar
  24. Lima, S. (2014). All notional mass nouns are count nouns in Yudja. In Proceedings of SALT 24 (pp. 534–554).Google Scholar
  25. Link, G. (1998). Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  26. Loehr, D. P. (2004). Gesture and intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicolas, D. (2016). The logic of mass expressions. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/logic-massexpress/.
  29. Nijhof, S., & Zwitserlood, I. (1999). Pluralization in sign language of the Netherlands (NGT). In J. Don & T. Sanders (Eds.), OTS yearbook 1998–1999 (pp. 58–78). Utrecht: Utrechts Instituut voor Linguistiek OTS.Google Scholar
  30. Nouwen, R. (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Nouwen, R. (2015). Plurality. In P. Dekker & M. Aloni (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Petronio, K. (1995). Bare noun phrases, verbs and quantification in ASL. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural language (Vol. 2, pp. 603–618). Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10, 49–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT 13. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  36. Schlenker, P. (2011). Donkey anaphora: The view from Sign Language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics and Philosophy, 34(4), 341–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlenker, P. (2014). Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics, 22(4), 299–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlenker, P. (2017a). Sign language and the foundations of anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlenker, P. (2017b). Gestural grammar. Manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod and New York University.Google Scholar
  40. Schlenker, P. (to appear a). Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  41. Schlenker, P. (to appear b). Super Monsters II. Semantics & Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  42. Schlenker, P. (to appear c). Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguistics & Philosophy.Google Scholar
  43. Schlenker, P. (to appear d). Iconic pragmatics. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  44. Schlenker, P. (to appear e). Gestural Semantics: Replicating the typology of linguistic inferences with pro- and post-speech gestures. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. Google Scholar
  45. Schlenker, P., & Chemla, E. (2018). Gestural agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 36(2), 587–625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9378-8.
  46. Schlenker, P., Lamberton, J., & Santoro, M. (2013). Iconic variables. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(2), 91–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Slama-Cazacu, T. (1976). Nonverbal components in message sequence: “Mixed syntax”. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and man: Anthropological issues (pp. 217–227). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  48. Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher-order implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures in compositional semantics (pp. 243–281). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sprouse, J., & Almeida, D. (2012). Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s core syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3), 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  51. Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  52. Zweig, E. (2006). The implications of dependent plural readings. In C. Davis, A. R. Deal, & Y. Zabbal (Eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (p. 735).Google Scholar
  53. Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 158–186). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale SupérieureInstitut Jean-Nicod (ENS - EHESS - CNRS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.PSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations