Supplement Slides Wilbur EALing 2012 Brentari Model Reduplication

Supplement Slides Wilbur EALing 2012

Brentari Model

Reduplication Sept 15

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 4

5

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 6

Spatial Layout: Planes, directions, geometry & cyclicity 7

K&B chart of suggested features for temporal modifications 8

K&B’s view of these features: • They observe one correlation: “end-marking” with change of state 9

Features mapping to meanings 10

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). 11

Resultative as Transition-Creating Morphological Function • Transitions – To become sick (Resultative) T E 1 ¬E 2 S S ei en -sick 12 sick end-marking change in speed

Achievement of final state 13. 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”. 13

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 (E 1, ¬E 2) • Change of speed in Resultative marks change of state • Neither end-marking nor Resultative formation involve reduplication 14

ASL Argument structure • Verb agreement – – None (“plain verbs”) Object agreement Subject-object agreement *Subject-only agreement • Generally conveyed by spatial location(s) 15

Exhaustive multiple object Process/activity Individuals (x) 16

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 x 19. Result: repeated stops at multiple points in sequence 17

Individual variable (x) viewed from set theory (or reasonable facsimile) • • • Argument number 20. Number of set members = 1, 2, or more (plural) Argument organization 21. Unordered set / Ordered set 22. 2 -d (time line)/ 3 -d (volume, over time) Argument quantification 23. Collective / Individuated 24. Indefinite / Definite/Specific 18

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 19

Definite/Specific vs. indefinite Allocative = acts (e) of giving over time (t) Individuated (x, e, t), not linearly ordered, specific (x) 20 Individuated (e, t), not linearly ordered, indefinite

Summary re: Arguments • Distributive Quantification 26. Quantifier EACH over individual variables x in a set 27. Stopping movement at point indicates variable x 28. 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 21

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” 22

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 23

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 …’ 24

“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. 25

“Manner” A long event with no clear start or end Start of event Time between events End of event 26

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 27

… and time between events • Significant time between events is shown by geometric circles, semicircles, ellipses; the return cycle 28

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 29

More: A feature geometry for Reduplication 30

Relevant Features [repeat] [return] Number of repetitions and argument number The feature [2 h] [alternate] [horizontal/vertical] Return to [return] The interface of aspectual reduplication and argument structure • “Embedding” of reduplication • • 31

[Repeat] 32

Number of repetitions and argument number GIVE-distrib 5 X 33

[2 h] - dual 34

[2 h] [+/-alt] 35

[hor/vert] 36

Return to [return] 1: telics 37

Return to [return] 2: atelics 38

Interaction with arguments: Allocative determinate (x, e, t) GIVE, [2 h], [alt], unordered 39

Allocative indeterminate 40

Summary 41

Non-manual marking Sept 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 Squint for ‘small amount’; shoulder What doesneck her up/shorten for ‘small’ face say? Is she disgusted? Mouthing /stu/ Is she stressed? Is she in pain? READ BOOKS Is she sad? neutral mouth – Is she relieved? not hard or easy

Negation NO GIRL BUY THAT DRESS LIKE-NOT WHY BUY ‘None of the girls bought that dress. ’ ‘If you don’t like that dress, why buy it? ’

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) Body (leans) Head X Eyebrows X Eyelids X Eyes (gaze) X Nose X Horizontal (y axis: R/L) In/Out (z axis) X X (backward/forward) X ? X Cheeks X (puff/suck) Lips: Upper X Lips: Lower X Lips: Both X (open/close) Lip corners X X (stretch) Tongue X X X (forward) Teeth X X X (forward) Chin X X (pout) X (pursed) X (forward thrust)

Tools for Analysis Facial Action Coding System (FACS) Paul Ekman, Ph. D. , Wallace V. Friesen, Ph. D. , Joseph C. Hager, Ph. D. Neutral face S 0 Inner up AU 1 Outer up ASL ‘br’ AU 2 AU 1+2

Nonmanuals may be layered (1) q mm 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 whethere 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 Features Liya Ding and Aleix M. Martinez, ECE, The Ohio State University CVPR 08

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.

[NP THAT, 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. 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.

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.

Thank you! QUESTIONS? ? ?