The Unity of Focus: Evidence from Sign Language (ASL and LSF)

Abstract

In spoken languages, focus (i) is normally realized by phonological prominence, which in English is effected by higher pitch, greater loudness and longer duration (e.g. Katz and Selkirk 2011). Semantically, it (ii) signals the activation of alternatives (e.g. Rooth 1996), and (iii) it has diverse effects, ranging from contrastive (as in (1)a) to exhaustive (as in (1)b). 1(1) a. I'll introduce John to Mary, and then I'll introduce BILL to her.b. If you invite John OR Mary, the party will be a success. => no inference that the party will be a success if the addressee invites John AND MaryFinally, it has been speculated that (iv) the realization of focus is driven by a biological 'effort code' whereby greater pitch excursions (and thus greater effort on the speaker's part) are associated with greater emphasis/importance; (Gussenshoven 2001(Gussenshoven , 2004). 2 Following Wilbur 2012, as well as Crasborn and van der Kooij 2013 and Kimmelman 2014, we argue that versions of all four properties hold of ASL and LSF focus, which suggests that focus has a unified semantics and to some extent a unified semantics/phonology interface across modalities; in particular, contrastive and exhaustive focus can be realized by the same prosodic means. Earlier studies emphasized the diversity of focus realization in ASL, and the importance of syntactic movement (Wilbur 2012), which made it hard to isolate the role of prosody. By contrast, detailed production studies of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) and Russian Sign Language (RSL) displayed in situ strategies of (corrective and informational) focus marking involving modulations of sign speed, size and duration, combined with non-manual markers in NGT (Crasborn and van der Kooij 2013;

The expression of contrast in Catalan Sign Language (LSC)

“…Almost all SLs studied to date have shown that body leans are the most common strategy employed by SLs for the expression of contrast between two referents. In ASL, forward and backward body leans are consistently used for expressing contrastive relations (Wilbur & Patschke 1998, Schlenker et al 2016. In NGT left and right body leans are used in order to express contrast (Van der Kooij et al 2006, Kimmelman 2014.…”

Focus and Intensification in the Semantics of Brow Raise

“…Rooth 1996). Schlenker et al (2016) discuss ASL and LSF instances of Brow Raise marking exhaustive focus (which can be analyzed in terms of a covert only), but also contrastive focus. Wilbur's analysis might have to be slightly extended to capture the latter cases.…”

“…For reader-friendliness, we follow Schlenker et al (2016) in using a revised transcription system (the SLASH-notation 7 ) in which sign modulations are indicated by modifying the glosses themselves, while non-manuals appear above the capitalized glosses, with a line indicating their duration, and iconic symbols whenever possible -in the order: 1. body changes 2. head changes 3. facial expressions, e.g. /}^.…”

“…/}^. We add to the conventions of Schlenker et al (2016) a distinction between normal Brow Raise (= ^) and heightened Brow Raise (= /\). (An important disclaimer:…”

“…which is known to have among others the functions in (1) (e.g. Schlenker et al 2016), also has the functions in (2). This was part of a multi-year collaboration between a semanticist and a consultant (and co-author) who is a native signer of ASL, with elicitation methods that have been refined over the years, as discussed below.…”