Impersonal reference to human agents in French Sign Language (LSF) Marie-Thérèse L’Huillier, Marie-Anne Sallandre and Brigitte Garcia
[email protected] ,
[email protected],
[email protected]
Melbourne, Australia, 4-7 January 2016
Poster presented by Dina Makouke and Alessio Di Renzo
Theoretical background Barberà & Quer 2013: The first study of impersonal reference to humans in SL
A prior analysis for LSF: Millet (1997, 2004)
‘R-Impersonals’: a subject/agent with very low referentiality (cf. Siewerska 2011, Cabredo Hofherr 2003) Overt marking in LSC (Catalan Sign Language):
Identification of 5 zones in the signing space, one of which (5) is dedicated to the 3 person animate indefinite agent.
1. Spatial localisation (top of the frontal plane): marks non-specific indefinites 2. May combine with lexical elements: agreement verbs WHO + pointing of the 3rd person plural pronominal form WHO + SOMEONE, PERSON, etc. 3rd person plural pronominal alone (vertical index / circular tracing) Sign [PERSON]
The Semiological Model (Cuxac 2000, Cuxac & Sallandre 2007, Fusellier-Souza 2006, Garcia & Derycke 2010…)
Nota : All elements may be combined 3. Some Role shifts (± “Personal Transfer”), related to a preceding sign PERSON
Signer’s eye gaze disconnected from
Signer’s eyegaze toward the
Two semiological and linguistic modes of meaning production in SLs
the Addresse’s one
Addressee
A cognitivo-functionalist approach of referentiality Telling by showing (Highly iconic structures) Transfer Units (TU) Global meaning = the exact sum of components meaning
([Reichler-]Béguelin 1993, Cornish 1999, Johnsen 2011) • Constrained discourse context: limited • Semantic and communicative intent prevalence • Cognitive representations of the interlocutors taken into account
Research questions
Classifier constructions (productive signs, depicting signs…) and Role shift (constructed actions, surrogates…) [see Garcia & Sallandre 2014]
Telling without showing (Standard structures) Lexematic Units (LU) Global meaning ≠ the exact sum of components meaning
TUs and LUs intertwin very frequently in discourse
- How do Deaf signers express human impersonality in LSF? - With which markers?
Methodology • • • •
Data : 1) CREAGEST Corpus (Garcia et L’Huillier 2011) : dialogues between two Deaf adults, different topics 2) LS-COLIN Corpus (Cuxac et al 2002): monologues (narratives, cook recipes, etc.) Samples in a large corpus (106 hours) of video data in French Sign Language (LSF) rather than elicited data : 10 hours footage analyzed for this poster, 6 signers, 30 minutes presented here (see Garcia & Makouke 2016, TISLR12) Annotation with ELAN Examining our data: a semantic starting point, in a wide utterance context.
ANALYSIS (2) TELLING WITHOUT SHOWING
ANALYSIS (1) TELLING BY SHOWING
1) With spatial anchoring (agreement verbs) In Personal transfers (PT), the signer embodies the Figure. PTs involve the whole body of the signer who reproduces actions carried out by an entity, usually a human or an animal, but which can also be inanimate. Signers’ body movements, eye gaze, and facial expression all correspond to the transferred entity.
1) Prescriptive PT • Classic Personal Transfer (PT) ≈ Role shift, Constructed Action : specific reference • Prescriptive PT : generic reference, agent with minimal referentiality = impersonal
Example 1 : SAY (repetition) Gloss: [BEFORE (…) CLASS SAY NEVER SAY NEVER TEACH] Tr.: “Before, (I didn’t know the job LSF teacher). In class, it was compartmentalised, nobody told us anything.”
Marking of R-impersonality (and plurality) :
Prescriptive PT: Signer: a generic cook, showing to prescribe (with gaze towards the addressee)
Gloss : [INFORM NEVER] Tr.: “Nobody ever informed me”.
Observations: Neither plurality of starting points nor repetition of the process.
• Zone ‘5’ of the indefinite animate (Millet 97), but not very high • Repetition of the verb (lexical unit SAY) • Mouthing (in Fr: « on m’a dit jamais ») • Circularity of the verb motion => plurality • Plural starting points for the bimanual verb
Classic PT: Signer becomes Horse (with agent’s gaze, facial expression, body posture)
Example 2: INFORM (no movement repetition)
Markers of R-impersonality:
• Space: very high starting point of the verb (zone ‘5’) towards signer (zone ‘3’) • Mouthing (in French: “informer jamais”)
2) Without spatial anchoring: sequence of lexical units in neutral space
2) Pseudo-PT Pseudo-personal transfer is another very special PT structure, present in corpus but not frequent. Cuxac (2000) says: "A prototypical action is simulated to describe or present a character, and not to actually represent his action (as in a PT). It has all the characteristics of personal transfer with less embodiment ". In his definition, this structure includes a generic value, the prototypical aspect of the entity which is embedded.
Gloss: [LEARN NEVER LIMIT FINISH] Tr: Learning never ends. Sequence of impersonal reference: Cf. prior context: ‘the whole world, deaf, hearing, everyone…’
Markers of R-Impersonality: absence of any spatial anchoring > Universal (≠ specific collective) = Maximal level of impersonality (see also Barberà & Quer 2013, Rinfret 2008)
3) Relevant Use of Topographic Space
(…)
(…) Gloss: [TELEVISION Pointing SING OR SPEAK HUG CARESS WOMAN LONG-HAIR MAN CARESS SAY Pointing WHAT Pointing]
(…) THEY
Translation: “On TV, the Deaf have to use their creativity to imagine that a man and a woman hug (embraced) and romantic, like that, tell (or sing) ”.
Gloss (single long sequence): (WHY ME [pointing]) FAMILY (HEARING) SPEAK (ME COMMUNICATE DIFFICULT) (…). …(WHY THEY [pointing] THERE IS PROBLEM LEVEL FRENCH) THEY (circular pointing) (…). (WHY) SPEAK [spatialized] (LACK HEAR SPEAK [spatialized] NOTHING HEAR)… Tr: “because in my hearing family, they spoke among themselves, and it was very difficult for me to communicate…. (…). … because among them [The Deaf community] there is a problem of level in French… (…). … because they [the hearings], they speak among themselves and we don’t hear, they speak and we hear nothing”.
Markers: • Discourse context : value of example => genericity • Pseudo-PT (prototypical reference) ≠ PT (specific reference)
Conclusion on PT:
• Various kind of PT (Role Shifts/Constructed Actions) could mark R-impersonal and genericity (prescriptive PT, pseudo-PT, other…) • PT organize space differently than lexical units (high/low or distance) : imagistic use of space
Observation: No explicit antecedent referring to ‘hearings’: meaning carried by the height of the lexical unit in space (+ the signer’s gaze directed from the lower space which refers to The Deaf) Hypothesis: Height in the frontal plane and distance from the signer = related to level of famialiarity/proximity with the collective referent discussed The position in the topographic space may contribute to express different types/levels of impersonality
In my FAMILY
THEM, The Deaf
‘that talking’ high above our heads = among the hearings
Conclusion : Linguistic markers for impersonal reference in LSF 1—A zone dedicated to the agentive indefinite animate, for directional verbs: to the left and right of the signer and/or the entire zone from left to right including the area in front of the signer (cf. Millet 1997) Hypothesis: the height in the frontal plane matches with a relevant use of topographic space, indicating level of familiarity/proximity (or impersonality) 2—Absence of spatial marking: sequence of spatially unanchored lexical units : maximal impersonality (idem
3—Two types of impersonal Personal Transfers (Role Shift/Constructed Actions) Prescriptive PT: major marker, the alternation of gaze direction + repetition of the process (in French, ‘tu’/’on’, infinitive) Pseudo PT: intrinsic prototype and genericity values
Acknowledgments The Deaf signers, Dina Makouke & Alessio Di Renzo, Coralie Vincent, Gemma Barberà, Dana Cohen, Antonio Balvet
Barberà & Quer 2013 ; Rinfret 2008)
Hypothesis: spatial anchoring when refering to a specific collective, VS. absence of any spatial anchoring.
References • • • • • • • • • •
Barberà, G. & J. Quer. (2013). Impersonal reference in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In L. Meurant, A. Sinte, M. van Herreweghe, & M. Vermeerbergen (eds.), Sign Language Research Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics. Sign Language and Deaf Communities Series Nº1, 237-258 Ishara Press and de Gruyter Mouton. Cabredo Hofherr, P. (2003), « Arbitrary readings of third person plural pronominals ». In Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 7. Universität Konstanz, FB Linguistik : Arbeitspapiere des Fachbereichs Sprachwissenschaften, Vol 114. http://www.ub.unikonstanz.de/serials/fb-sprach.htm Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford, Clarendon. Cuxac, C. (1999). The Expression of Spatial Relations and the Spatialization of Semantic Relations in French Sign Language. In C. Fuchs & S. Robert, (eds), Language Diversity and Cognitive Representations, Benjamins: Amsterdam, 123-142. Cuxac, C. (2000). "La Langue des Signes Française (LSF). Les voies de l’iconicité". Faits de Langue 15-16. Paris: Ophrys. Cuxac, C. et al. (2002). Corpus LS-COLIN, http://cocoon.tge-adonis.fr/exist/crdo/meta/crdo-FSL-CUC021_SOUND Cuxac, C. & Sallandre, M.-A. (2007). Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly Iconic Structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparing Structures, Constructs and Methodologies, E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea & R. Simone (eds), 13-33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fusellier-Souza, I. (2006). Emergence and development of Signed Languages: from diachronic ontogenesis to diachronic phylogenesis. Sign Language Studies 7 n° 1, Gallaudet University Press. 30-56. Garcia, B. (2010). Sourds, surdité, langue(s) des signes et épistémologie des sciences du langage. Problématiques de la scripturisation et modélisation des bas niveaux en Langue des Signes Française (LSF). Habilitation Thesis, University Paris 8. Garcia, B. & L’Huillier, M.-T. (2011). Corpus de dialogues entre adultes sourds. Corpus Creagest-Adultes, ANR Corpus : http://sldr.org/voir_depot.php?lang=fr&id=926
• • • • • • • • •
Creagest corpus is now partially available online: http://sldr.org/voir_depot.php?lang=fr&id=926
Garcia, B. & Sallandre, M.-A. (2014). Reference resolution in French Sign Language. In P. Cabredo Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (Eds), Crosslinguistic studies on Noun Phrase structure and reference. Syntax and semantics series, volume 39. Leiden: Brill, 316-364. Garcia, B. & Makouke, D. (2016). Compounding in lexical morphology: is it relevant for French sign language (LSF)? Poster presented at TISLR12 conference, Melbourne, Australia, January 5, 2016. Johnsen, L.A. (2011) : « Who are they ? On the reference of collective ils (‘they’) in French », in Branco A. et al. (eds.), Conference Proceedings of The 8th Discourse and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, Edições, Colibri, 23-38 L'Huillier, M.-T., Sallandre, M.-A. and Garcia, B. (2015). Impersonal reference to humans in LSF: a first glance. Workshop on Sign languages and R-impersonal pronouns, organized by Gemma Barbera & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, Paris, February 6, 2015. Millet, A. (1997). Réflexions sur le statut du mouvement dans les langues gestuelles : aspects lexicaux et syntaxiques. Lidil, 15, 11–30. Millet, M. (2004). La langue des signes française (LSF) : une langue iconique et spatiale méconnue, Cahiers de l’APLIUT, Vol. XXIII N° 2, 31-44. [Reichler-]Béguelin, M.-J. (1993). Faits déviants et tri des observables. TRANEL, 20, 89–109. Sallandre, M.-A., 2003. Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Française. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. PhD Thesis, University Paris 8. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00185376 Siewierska, A. (2011). Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: Manconstructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Impersonal Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Andrej Malchukov, and Anna Siewierska (eds.), 57–90. Amsterdam: John Bejamins.
