Supplement Slides

WilburEALing2012

Brentari Model

ReduplicationSept 15

4

Klima & Bellugi (1979) Approach• Templates contain information about shape,

direction, speed, and possible endpoints of movement

• Each template involves some of the available features

• For the most part, the choice of features and arrangement of each template is arbitrary– Take lexical item, apply an aspectual modification

template, which can then be input into another aspectual modification template

5

6

Wilbur, Klima, & Bellugi (1983) observations:

• Claims 7 and 8: Template modifications divide into two categories: spatial and temporal

• Spatial modifications semantically affect predicate arguments

• Temporal modifications semantically affect the predicate itself

7

Spatial Layout: Planes, directions, geometry & cyclicity

8

K&B chart of suggested features for temporal modifications

9

K&B’s view of these features:

• They observe one correlation: “end-marking” with change of state

10

Features mapping to meanings

11

My Claims 9-12

9. End-marking is not a feature of reduplicated forms

10. End-marking reflects the final state of an event

11. End-marking reflects lexical telicity (e.g. ARRIVE, SIT, FIND, DIE)

12. End-marking may be provided by the Resultative (changes atelic to telic).

12

Resultative as Transition-Creating Morphological Function

• Transitions– To become sick (Resultative)

eien

-sick sickend-marking

change in speed

T

E1 ¬E2

S S

13

Achievement of final state13. The resultative modification

is a morphological function that focuses on the attainment of a final state (s) at the end of some amount of time (t), shown by “not short” movement.

15. The end-marking (hold, contact) occurs when the change reaches the final state [sick] from [¬sick].

14. The speed changes from slow to fast. This change reflects “change of state”.

14

Summary: Events and Movements

• Repetition is different from reduplication• End-marking reflects final state of telic event• Resultative creates telic events from atelic events by

putting them in opposition (E1, ¬E2)• Change of speed in Resultative marks change of

state• Neither end-marking nor Resultative formation

involve reduplication

15

ASL Argument structure

• Verb agreement– None (“plain verbs”)– Object agreement– Subject-object agreement– *Subject-only agreement

• Generally conveyed by spatial location(s)

16

Exhaustive multiple object

Process/activity

Individuals (x)

17

More Claims 16-19

16. Distributive quantification over arguments• EACHx • Number in set X more than 2; otherwise Dual

17. xi,…xn are represented by points in spacei…n

18. Each act of giving stops at each recipient x19. Result: repeated stops at multiple points in

sequence

18

Individual variable (x) viewed from set theory (or reasonable facsimile)

• Argument number20. Number of set members = 1, 2, or more (plural)

• Argument organization21. Unordered set / Ordered set22. 2-d (time line)/ 3-d (volume, over time)

• Argument quantification23. Collective / Individuated24. Indefinite / Definite/Specific

19

Predictions

24. Linear sequence (ordered)– Individuated x (‘each’)– Seriated event sequences (ei,ej…en)– Exhaustive/distributive

25. Randomized (Unordered)– Spatial array (e over t), volume– Individuated, indefinite– Allocative

20

Definite/Specific vs. indefinite

Individuated (e, t), not linearly ordered, indefinite

Individuated (x, e, t), not linearly ordered, specific (x)

Allocative = acts (e) of giving over time (t)

21

Summary re: Arguments• Distributive Quantification

26. Quantifier EACH over individual variables x in a set27. Stopping movement at point indicates variable x28. The cardinality must be more than 2, otherwise Dual

29. Minimum of 3 semantically necessary, number above 3 irrelevant

30. Hence number of repetitions above 2 is indeterminate 31. Hence, possibility of uncountable ‘trill’ movement

22

Time between events

• Essentially no time between discrete events = “incessant” – can’t tell where one event ends and next begins

• May be reasonable time between events = clear return from final position of last event to initial position of next event, “habitual”

• Extended times between events = semi-circular path between end of one event and start of another, “iterative”

23

Incessant – no time between events; no clear start and end time of event

Habitual – clear start and end time of event; time between events not relevant

Iterative - clear start and end time of event; significant time between events

24

Time between events

An act of ‘looking at’ in progress = Process

Long(er) acts of “looking at” with time passing in between – ‘was looking at and looking at and …’

25

“Quality”

Durational “does not convey temporal extent,” merely ongoing process; Continuative means “for a long time,” which is a frame adverbial that indicates temporal extent of the event. Temporal extent is conveyed by elongation of the movement.

26

“Manner”

Time between events End of event

Start of event

A long event with no clear

start or end

27

Event time

• Event time may be shown by:– A movement from one position to another (transitions)

• The positions need not be meaningful morphemes themselves.• Semantically, the positions indicate start and end state

– An ongoing movement (processes)– No movement (state)

• Transitional movement to and from target position (e.g. SICK) but no lexically meaningful movement

28

… and time between events

• Significant time between events is shown by geometric circles, semicircles, ellipses; the return cycle

29

Reduplication Summary 1

• There are strong correlations between semantic variables/event structure and phonological forms in ASL predicate formation.

• The previous templatic treatment of reduplication can be seen to mask the semantic compositionality of the phonological forms.

• The pieces can be put together based on semantics, creating a form that can then be repeated by REDUP

30

More: A feature geometry for Reduplication

31

Relevant Features• [repeat]• [return]• Number of repetitions and argument number• The feature [2h] • [alternate]• [horizontal/vertical]• Return to [return] • The interface of aspectual reduplication and argument

structure• “Embedding” of reduplication

32

[Repeat]

33

Number of repetitions and argument number

GIVE-distrib 5X

34

[2h] - dual

35

[2h] [+/-alt]

36

[hor/vert]

37

Return to [return] 1: telics

38

Return to [return] 2: atelics

39

Interaction with arguments: Allocative determinate (x, e, t)

GIVE, [2h], [alt], unordered

40

Allocative indeterminate

41

Summary

Non-manual markingSept 16

Use of face

• Multiple channels of information• Distinction between emotional/affective and

grammatical usage• Face divided into upper and lower

– Upper face clausal– Lower face phrasal

Reading sentence on card

FEW

STUDENTS

READ BOOKS

What does her face say?

Is she disgusted?

Is she stressed?

Is she in pain?

Is she sad?

Is she relieved?

Squint for ‘small amount’; shoulder up/shorten neck for ‘small’

Mouthing /stu/

neutral mouth – not hard or easy

NO GIRL BUY THAT DRESS

‘None of the girls bought that dress.’

DRESS LIKE-NOT WHY BUY

‘If you don’t like that dress, why buy it?’

Negation

Complexity of the problem

• Regions that the face can be divided into

• 14 potentially separate articulators

• Combinations of articulations and physical and linguistic constraints.

Complexity of the problem

Complexity of the problem Articulator Vertical (x axis: Up/Down) Horizontal (y axis: R/L) In/Out (z axis)

Body (leans)   X X (backward/forward)

Head X X  ?

Eyebrows X    

Eyelids X    

Eyes (gaze) X X  

Nose X    

Cheeks     X (puff/suck)

Lips: Upper X    

Lips: Lower X X X (pout)

Lips: Both X (open/close)   X (pursed)

Lip corners X X (stretch)  

Tongue X X X (forward)

Teeth X X X (forward)

Chin     X (forward thrust)

Tools for AnalysisFacial Action Coding System (FACS)Paul Ekman, Ph.D., Wallace V. Friesen, Ph.D., Joseph C. Hager, Ph.D.

ASL ‘br’Neutral face Inner up Outer up

S0 AU1 AU2 AU 1+2

Nonmanuals may be layered q

mm(1) MAN FISH[I:continuous] (Liddell 1978)

'Is the man fishing with relaxation and enjoyment?'

• Predicate aspectual inflection [I:continuous]• Predicate adverbial modification 'mm‘:

form: lips pressed together meaning: ‘with pleasure or enjoyment’

• Upper face (brows raised), head (head forward) and body (lean forward) marking for the question ('q')

•On only two signs!

Nonmanuals differ in form and scope based on functions.

• Blinks that occur on signs tend to be slower, deeper, and more deliberate than those that mark phrase boundaries (Wilbur 1994).

• Brow raises spread over a different domain (semantic restriction of [-wh]-operators) than others (e.g. negative headshakes and brow lowering, which spread over c-command domain).

Wilbur, R. B. (2011). Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 14: 148-178.

A short example

t

I-SHOW-YOU SENTENCE. PICNIC(fs),

cond hn++

IF RAIN, CANCEL.

‘I’ll show you a sentence. “As for the picnic, if it rains, it will be cancelled.”’

Operator Analysis of NMMs

Wilbur, R. B. (2011). Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 14: 148-178.

Wilbur’s NMM Operator Hypothesis:

• For cross-linguistic investigation • For possible falsification

• SLs use the same non-manual to mark each of the structures that ASL uses brow raise on, that is, all [-wh], but do not necessarily use brow raise as the marker (in fact it looks like they don’t).

Implications

• There is a cohesive group of [-wh] semantic concepts that SLs treat uniformly.

• Or, there are sub-groups to this group, with some being grouped with one marker and one with another.

• Or …..• Either way, the question is whether there is

evidence for such grouping, and if so, what does that tell us about semantics? Spoken languages?

A short example

t

I-SHOW-YOU SENTENCE. PICNIC(fs),

cond hn++

IF RAIN, CANCEL.

‘I’ll show you a sentence. “As for the picnic, if it rains, it will be cancelled.”’

Precise Detailed Detection of Faces and Facial FeaturesLiya Ding and Aleix M. Martinez, ECE, The Ohio State UniversityCVPR08

Prosody and Information Structure and Syntax and Semantics …

Sept 16

Stress and focus differences

• In English, stress/focus can be shifted to different locations in a sentence. Vallduvi called this ‘plasticity’ or [+plastic].

• In ASL, with one exception, stress/focus is preferred in final position. ASL is [-plastic].

• To get focus where you need it in ASL, you have to get other words out of way so target can be focused.

Wilbur, R. B. (2012). Information structure. In Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK - Handbooks of linguistics and communication science), 462-488. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

[NP THAT, bla bla] in g is Cleft structure in ASL (Susan Fischer). Cleft is frequent exception across languages to fixed focus position. Nonetheless, the phrase NP THAT is where the main stress is in this structure.

Wrap Up

• There is much, much more to each of these topics.

• You should have enough background to read the papers on the class website, after which you should be able to read additional literature on your own.

• Keep an open mind and do not assume that what you read is necessarily the last word, including everything I’ve said as well.

QUESTIONS???Thank you!