R-loci and Distributivity: Insights from Czech Sign Language

Mojmír Dočekal,

Hana Strachoňová

Abstrakt

Niniejszy artykuł omawia konstrukcję o interpretacji dystrybutywnej w czeskim języku migowym. Wyraża się ją za pomocą reduplikacji z wykorzystaniem punktów referencjalnych w przestrzeni migowej i przypomina ona dystrybutywne znaczenie dwurzeczownikowego użycia kwantyfikatora każdy, znane z języków mówionych. Niemniej istnieją znaczące różnice pomiędzy reduplikacją w języku migowym a dystrybutywnością w języku mówionym obserwowaną w przypadku tego kwantyfikatora. Najistotniejsza z nich dotyczy zakresu interpretacyjnego reduplikacji w języku migowym. Autorzy omawiają zebrane dane językowe, a następnie dokonują ich opisu formalnego w ramach mnogościowej kompozycyjnej teorii reprezentacji dyskursu (Plural Compositional Discourse Representation Theory, PCDRT). Stanowi to podstawę dla analizy materiału oraz odpowiedzi na wynikające z niego pytania.

ABSTRACT

This article describes a distributivity pattern in Czech Sign Language. The pattern is signed via a reduplication at the R-loci and resembles the distributivity behavior of the binominal each that is known in spoken languages. Nevertheless, there are important differences between the sign language reduplication and the spoken language distributivity that is seen in the binominal each; the most significant concerns the range of readings available for the sign language reduplication. We describe the data we gathered, and then formalize them in the Plural Compositional Discourse Representation Theory. The formal framework allows us to analyze the data and explain certain questions which arise from them.

Słowa kluczowe: Czech Sign Language, distributivity, reduplication, R-loci, PCDRT, individual and occasional interpretation, czeski język migowy, dystrybutywność, reduplikacja, lokalizacje referencyjne, interpretacja jednostkowa i okazjonalna
References

Aloni Maria, Kimmelman Vadim, Roelofsen Floris, Sassoon Galit W., Schulz Katrin, Westera Matthijs (eds.) (2012). Logic, Language and Meaning. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer.

Balusu Rahul (2006). Distributive reduplication in Telugu. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 36), Christopher Davis, Youri Zabbal, Amy Rose Deal (eds.), 39–53. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Barker Chris (1992). Group terms in English: Representing groups as atoms. Journal of Semantics 9(1), 69–93.

Beck Sigrid (2000). Star operators – episode 1: Defense of the double star. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 26(3), 2.

Beck Sigrid, Sauerland Uli (2000). Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8(4), 349–71.

Bennett Michael (1974). Some extensions of a montague fragment of English. PhD thesis. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

Berg Martin van den (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam.

Brasoveanu Adrian (2008). Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus nonatomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy 31(2), 129–209.

Brasoveanu Adrian, Henderson Robert (2009). Varieties of distributivity: ‘one by one’ vs. ‘each’. Proceedings of the 19th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 19), Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito, and David Lutz (eds.), 55–72. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

Cable Seth (2014). Distributive numerals and distance distributivity in Tlingit (and beyond). Language 90(3), 562–606.

Champollion Lucas (2012). Each vs. jeweils: A cover-based view on distance distributivity. In Aloni, Kimmelman, Roelofsen, Sassoon, Schulz, Westera (eds.), 251–60.

Champollion Lucas (2016a). Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(15), 1–65.

Champollion Lucas (2016b). Overt distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 9(16), 1–65.

Davies Mar (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2), 159–90. 

Dočekal Mojmír, Šimík Radek (2020). Czech binominal každý ‘each’. In Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2018, Andreas Blümel, Jovana Gajić, Uwe Junghanns, Hagen Pitsch (eds.), 35–61. Berlin: Language Science Press.

Dotlačil Jakub (2012). Binominal each as an anaphoric determiner: Compositional analysis. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 16, Ana Aguilar Guevara, Anna Chernilovskaya, Rick Nouwen (eds.), 1, 211–24. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.

Dotlačil Jakub (2013). Reciprocals distribute over information states. Journal of Semantics 30(4), 423–77.

Henderson Robert Martin (2012). Ways of pluralizing events. PhD thesis. UC Santa Cruz.

Henderson Robert (2014). Dependent indefinites and their post-suppositions. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(6), 1–58.

Kimmelman Vadim (2017). Quantifiers in Russian sign language. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II, 803–55. Cham: Springer.

Kimmelman Vadim (2018). Reduplication and repetition in Russian sign language. In Exact Repetition in Grammar and Discourse, Rita Finkbeiner, Ulrike Freywald (eds.), 91–109. Berlin–Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Kuhn Jeremy (2017). Dependent indefinites: The view from sign language. Journal of Semantics 34(3), 407–46.

Kuhn Jeremy (2019). Pluractionality and distributive numerals. Language and Linguistics Compass 13(2):e12309, 1–17.

Kuhn Jeremy, Aristodemo Valentina (2017). Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French sign language. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(6), 1–49. 

Kuruncziová Dominika 2020. Binominálne každý ‒ experimentálna štúdia. Master’s thesis. Brno: Masaryk University. https://is.muni.cz/th/vuxuc/. Accessed 1 12.2021.

Landman Fred (2000). Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures, Vol. 76. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Law Jess H.-K. (2022). The mereological structure of distributivity: A case study of binominal each. Journal of Semantics 39(1), 159–211.

Lillo-Martin Diane, Klima Edward S. (1990). Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol. 1, Susan D. Fischer, Patricia Siple (eds.), 191–210. Chicago, IL–London: University of Chicago Press.

Link Godehard (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bäurle, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow (eds.), 303–23. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Nouwen Rick Willem Frans (2003). Plural pronominal anaphora in context: Dynamic aspects of quantification. PhD thesis. Utrecht University.

Quer Josep (2012). Quantificational strategies across language modalities. In Aloni, Kimmelman, Roelofsen, Sassoon, Schulz, Westera (eds.), 82–91.

Safir Ken, Stowell Tim (1987). Binominal each. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 18), James Blevins, Juli Carter (eds.), 426–50. Amherst, MA: GLSA.

Schlenker Philippe (2017). Sign language and the foundations of anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics 3, 149–77.

Schlenker Philippe (2018). Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Theoretical Linguistics 44(3‒4), 123–208.

Schlenker Philippe, Lamberton Jonathan (2019). Iconic plurality. Linguistics and Philosophy 42(1), 45–108.

Schwarzschild Roger (1996). Pluralities, Vol. 61. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Szabolcsi Anna (2010). Quantification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winter Yoad (2001). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics: Coordination, Plurality, and Scope in Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zimmermann Malte (2002). Boys buying two sausages each: On the syntax and semantics of distance-distributivity. PhD thesis, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.