Sign Language Syntax I

1
Sign Language Syntax I

• COGS 524, A. Hohenberger, Spring term 2007
• Sandler Lillo-Martin 2006,
• chapter 17,18 Syntax, clausal structure

2
Syntax An introductionchapter 17

• What can research on the syntax of signed
  languages tell us that we don't know yet from
  spoken languages?

3
Syntax of signed languages
4
The generative approach

• Sandler Lillo-Martin take a generative approach
  to syntax.
• Generative Grammar, GG, is the tradition founded
  by Chomsky in the late 50ies, which views
  language as a cognitive module unto its own, with
  domain specific constraints and an excentric
  stimulus domain that comprises all spoken and
  signed languages alike.

5
The standard T-model
LF Logical Form Interface
PF
LF
surface structure
Transformations, Move-?
PF Phonetic Form Interface
deep structure

• In the classical T-model, words are projected
  from the lexicon into the workspace of syntax
  where phrases and sentences are built from them
  which receive perceptual form (speech or sign)
  and conceptual interpretation.

http//www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/07/pinker-and-jacken
doff-vs-chomsky.php
6
From deep to surface structure

• Traditionally, it was held that there is a level
  of deep structure where lexical and thematic
  information is represented and
• a level of surface structure where the overt,
  linear word order is represented.
• Both levels are related through transformations
  or derivations (movement operations).
• Since the Minimalist program, however, no such
  distinct levels are assumed anymore, since it has
  been doubted that there are distinct constraints
  that hold on these presumed levels. Instead,
  there is only syntax with its two interfaces,
  PF and LF.

7
D-and S-structure in Minimalism

• Chomsky 1995, 22

http//spzwww.uni-muenster.de/griesha/spw/ug/stru
ktur-basics.html
8
Minimalism
http//spzwww.uni-muenster.de/griesha/spw/ug/mini
malismus.html
9
What is Universal Grammar, UG?
10
What is Universal Grammar, UG?

• UG is a set of constraints on the possible format
  of natural human languages. UG is thought to be
  innate, domain specific (only for language) but
  a-modal.
• Sign languages have been readily integrated into
  UG-accounts of language. Why? Because any theory
  of UG, such as GG, is abstract enough to
  disregard the form of the language and its
  processing (in which sensory modality it is
  conveyed and processed).

11
UG Principles and Parameters

• In the Principles-and-Parameters Model of GG,
  language is thought to include
• (1) universal principles which apply to all
  languages
• (2) parameters, i.e., areas of (principled and
  restricted) linguistic variation within which
  languages can choose different values

12
Structure and hierarchy

• Many linguistic phenomena are sensitive to
  hierarchical structural relations.
• A classical definition of such structural
  relations is C-command.

13
UG Principles and Parameters

• Principles ?

• Parameters?

14
The head parameter
French is head initial
German is head final
http//spzwww.uni-muenster.de/griesha/spw/ug/para
ms-basics.html
15
C-command From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia In grammar, the c-command relation
is a relationship between certain nodes in parse
trees. Originally defined by Tanya Reinhart, it
is analogous to the idea of "siblings and all
their descendants" in family trees. In the
following tree A c-commands C, D, and E.
B does not c-command any nodes. C
c-commands A. D c-commands E. E
c-commands D. B / \ A C / \ D E
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-command
16
A node is said to "dominate" another node if it
is above it in the tree (it is a parent,
grandparent, etc.) The formal definition is that
X c-commands Y if X does not dominate
Y. Y does not dominate X. by some accounts,
the first node that dominates X also dominates
Y. by other accounts, the first branching node
that dominates X also dominates Y. The following
tree is an example of where the two accounts
differ in their result. If all nodes are
considered, then A does not c-command any other
nodes, because B dominates it and does not
dominate any other nodes if only branching nodes
are considered, then B is irrelevant in
evaluating the third criterion, and A c-commands
D, E, and F. C / \ B D \ A E F
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-command
17
C (constituent command)
http//www.criticism.com/linguistics/govt-binding-
basics1.php
C-Command (1) Node A c-commands node B if and
only if (i) A does not dominate B and B does not
dominate A and (ii) the first branching node
dominating A also dominates B. C-Command (2) A
c-commands B if and only if A does not dominate B
and every X that dominates A also dominates
B. For the choice of X in C-command (2), two
options are considered. When X is equated with
the first branching node we obtain the c-command
definition given in C-command (1). This
structural relation is sometimes referred to as
strict c-command. Alternatively, X is interpreted
as a maximal projection. Under the latter
interpretation of (2), A m-commands B.
18
An example
VP verbal phrase
Subject specifier
Verb head of phrase
Object complement

• Who c-commands who?

19
Government
governing node V governing category verb 'visit'
X governs Y just in case (i) X is a
governing node c-commanding Y (ii) there is
no other governing node Z that (a) X
c-commands Z (b) Z c-commands Y
(c) Z does not c-command X

• Governing nodes are lexical categories (V, P, N,
  A), TENSE, and POSS

http//spzwww.uni-muenster.de/griesha/spw/ug/basi
cs/gov.html
20
Government
governing node p governing category Preposition
towards
http//spzwww.uni-muenster.de/griesha/spw/ug/basi
cs/gov.html
21
An example A sentence, viewed in
Lexical-categorical grammar

• Thus, likes (and any transitive verb) is a
  function that first looks for a direct object
  noun to its right, and once applied to the
  argument syntax, has closed off that argument
  slot, becoming something like an intransitive
  verb (i.e., likes-syntax). Then this likes-syntax
  function looks for a subject noun to its left,
  and once applied to the argument Chomsky closes
  of its remaining argument slot. With no open
  argument slots, we are left with a complete
  sentence.

22
Clausal structure in Signed Languages(chapter 18)

• We are used to saying
• English has SVO as basic word order
• Turkish and German have SOV as basic word order
• Do Sign Languages also have basic word order?

23
What is the basic word order in ASL?

• SVO, as in
• (1a) MAN NOTICE CHILD
• Other word orders show intonational breaks
  (pauses, non-manual markers)
• (1b) CHILD, MAN NOTICE OSV--gt topicalization
• (1c) NOTICE CHILD, MAN VOS --gt VO topical.

24
Variable word order

• With semantically non-reversible propositions,
  word order is flexible
• (2a) MAN MUST B-I-L-L PAY
• (2b) MAN MUST PAY B-I-L-L
• With idioms, SOV is also possible
• (4a) WATER TURN-FAUCET
• ('turn on water')
• (4b) MOVIE FLASH-FLASH
• ('take movies')

25
Variable word order

• With AGR-verbs, also, word order is free. Here,
  articulatory reasons make the OSV word order most
  preferred
• Indexj Indexi iASKj
• Hei asks herj.
• If the word order were SVO, the signing would
  first localize the subject, then trace the verb
  from the (yet unindexed) object to the subject
  and then localize the object. That would make no
  sense at all.

26
SVO in questions

• Liddell shows that although word order may be
  variable in declarative sentences, it is fix in
  questions
• q
• (5) WOMAN FORGET PURSE

27
Topicalization

• In topicalization, any element may be fronted.
  The topicalized constituent is marked
  non-manually by raised eyebrows.
• A topic is outside the sentence, which is
  evidenced by negation of the root sentence.
  Negation does not spill over to the topic, since
  it is not in the c-command domain of the negative
  marker
• S0
• NP S1
• DOG S2 V
• CHASE CAT neg

V c-commands S2 but not NP DOG
28
Word order and iconicity

• Some sentences are SOV since this is more
  compatible with their mimetic content
• (9b) WOMAN PIE PUT-IN-OVEN

29
Word order in Classifier constructions

• In order to clarify the spatial relation between
  the arguments, classifier constructions may also
  have SOV
• (11) FENCE 4-CL-----------------------------------
  --
• CAT V-CL on 4-CL
• Locative Obj Loc Subj Loc predicate
• ground figure
• The cat is lying on the fence

30
Word order and aspect

• If, due to aspect-inflection, the verb gets
  heavier, it is shifted to the end of the
  sentence (here a question) as well
• 
  q
• (12) TOMATO GIRL EATdurativeaspect
• 'Did the girl eat tomatoes for a long time?

31
Padden's analysis Basic SV order

• Deviations of SV(O) word order are explained by a
  multiclausal analysis, e.g. The CL construction
  above
• (11) FENCE 4-CL
• 'the fence is here' Sentence 1N CL
• -------------------------------------
• CAT V-CL on 4-CL
• 'and the cat is sitting on the fence
• Sentence 2 N CL
• According to this analysis, there are 2 sentences
  both of which have a classifier predicate which
  are clausal in nature.

32
CL constructions as sentential complements

• Verbs that take clausal complements, like
  THINK, can also take Cls as complements
• Cls can be 'short answers' to questions, unlike
  Ns
• Facial adverbs that only occur with verbs, can
  also occur with Cls

33
Multiclausal CL constructions

• Some CL constructions which involve verbs in
  final position, can also be accounted for by a
  multi-clausal analysis
• (22) MAN BOOK READ
• left hand CLB
• right hand MAN BOOK CLBB-OPEN READ

34
AGR-Verbs multiclausal analysis

• For sentences involving Indexing and AGR-verbs,
  Padden also provides a multiclausal analysis
• (26) BOY iINDEX1 GIRL jINDEX2 iKICKj3
• If these are 3 clauses, the last of which is he
  kicked her, then SVO order is preserved.

35
Embedding

• One of the hallmarks of a natural language is
  recursion. Embedded structures are an example of
  recursion.
• The basic distinction is between
• Parataxis coordination S1 and S2
• Hypotaxis embedding, subordination S1S2

36
Negation A Test for embedding

• Non-manual negation can spread embedded
  structures but not coordinated structures
• 
  neg
• (28a) 1INDEX WANT iINDEX GO-AWAY
• 'I didn't want him to leave.'
• neg
  hn
• (28b) 1INDEX TELEPHONE, iINDEX MAIL LETTER
• 'I didn't telephone but she sent a letter.'

37
Manual markers of coordination

• While for embedding there are no markers
  (manual), there are coordinating conjunctions
  such as AND, OR, BUT in ASL.
• --gt There is rich evidence that there are
  embedded structures, hence, recursion, in SL.

38
Generative approaches to PS

• X-bar architecture
• a head (X,X, X') combines with a complement to
  form an X-bar (X'). X' combines with a specifier
  to form a full phrase/ maximal projection (X'',
  Xmax).

39
Order in the x-bar module is parameterized

• The order between the subject and the verb can be
  SV or VS
• The order between the verb and the object can be
  VO or OV
• Given these 2 basic alternations, there are 4
  possible clause structures
• S-OV, S-VO, OV-S, VO-S,

40
Functional projections standard clause structure
CP Complementizer Phrase TP Tense Phrase NEG
Negation Phrase AGR Agreement Phrase VP
Verbal Phrasev

• CP
• C TP
• T NEG-P
• NEG AGR-P
• AGR VP
• V ...

Further FCs Q Question Topic, Focus DET
Determiner AGR-S Agreement Subject AGR-O
Agreement Object Aspect
41
Feature checking

• In minimalism, features such as Tense or
  Agreement are checked within a particular
  structural configuration the specifier-head
  relation. Therefore, in principle, there must be
  a separate projection for each functional
  category.

42
A big controversy Do SLs have hierarchical
structure?

• L-M S
• YES!

• Bouchard Dubuisson (1995)
• NO!
• BD claim that word order is just one means to
  express the relation between two linguistic
  elements. Others are AGR CASE, and spatial
  relations
• If there is an alternative way to express the
  relation, then the language does not have
  structure

43
The structure of the argument

• Physical relations between two expressions can be
  instantiated by
• Temporal order, sequence --gt spoken languages.
  Here, structural relations are needed to tell the
  underlying order of the elements which may not be
  preserved on the surface, due to movement
  processes.
• Spatial order --gt signed languages. Which
  elements go together is expressed by their
  spatial arrangement. Such a language does not
  need and therefore does not have structure.
• At best, SLs are mixed systems which have a
  structural option as an elsewhere condition in
  case spatial relations do not obtain.

44
Arguments against a non-structural account of SLs
45
Arguments against a non-structural account of SLs

• Unclear how SLs should have no structures most of
  the time but sometimes do have structure
• All human languages do have structure and word
  order. Therefore, WO does not cost anything. It
  is a universal.
• Seeming flexible word order can be accounted for
  by movement processes, such as scrambling in
  non-configurational languages.

46
Accounting for flexible word order

• Mini-topicalization
• According to Fisher, in ASL an NP can move to any
  available Specifier position. E.g., the object of
  a verb can go to Spec VP and derive a SOV order.

47
Accounting for flexible word order

• Split headedness
• V and P are head-initial in ASL. Romano (1991)
  has suggested that FCs in general are head-final
  and LCs are head-initial.
• FC Functional category
• LC lexical category

48
Head-initial VP and head-final IP and CP

• CP
• Spec C'
• IP C
• Spec I'
• VP I
• Spec V'
• V O

final
final
initial
49
Head-initial VP and head-final IP and CP
(38b) ME FINISH SEE MOVIE
(38a) ME SEE MOVIE FINISH

• CP
• Spec C'
• IP C
• Spec I'
• VP I
• Spec V'
• V O

CP Spec C' IP C Spec I' VP I
Spec V' V O
finish
affix hopping
me
me
see
movie
finish
see
movie
50
Only head-initial FCs

• While it may be that some categories are
  head-inital and others are head-final, the cut
  need not go through Functional and Lexical
  categories, according to L-M S.
• Others have suggested merely head-initial
  structures, such as Neidle, Kegl, Petronio, and
  colleagues. They have elaborated a highly complex
  PS for ASL

51
Partial syntactic tree by Neidle et al.

• TP
• T NegP
• Neg AspP
• Asp AGR-SP
• AGR-S AGR-OP
• AGR-O VP
• V ...

52
Non-manual marking of FCs

• Typical for the approach of the Neidle group is
  that they consider non-manual markers as the
  heads of functional categories such as AGR-S and
  AGR-O.
• --gt Müge's presentation next week