Syntax-discourse interface

Already in file 1, Maria produces a narrative that documents her command of the syntax-discourse interface in a remarkable way.

Referential establishment and maintenance. Maria skilfully uses non-manual means in a contrastive manner to signal and mark POVs (eye gaze, body shift), which contributes to establish referential identity unambiguously also in those contexts, in which perspective shifts succeed each other. Where referential shifts involve a referent other than the subject of the previous event they are almost always signalled via NPs.

A remarkable example of Maria’s creative use of fixed and shifted referential frameworks is provided in (187) (the sequence contains example (177) repeated here in (187c)). Note that the third shift of the referential framework in (187e), in which the signer takes up the perspective of the boy and the dog, is not signalled via a lexically overt reference to the subjects (as it is the case in (187a) and (187b)), but is marked through a change in eye gaze direction as well as through the modulation of the sign see. Referential identity is unambiguous because referents have been associated with contrastive loci on the vertical axis, so that body lean forward and eye gaze directed toward the bottom mark reference to the boy (looking at the frog) and eye gaze directed toward the top of the sign space marks reference to the frog (looking up to the boy and the dog). It is interesting to note, from a narrative perspective, that the rapid change of referential frameworks in (187) combined with the contrastive use of loci on the vertical axis allows Maria to express simultaneity of events in a sophisticated manner. Furthermore, we can see that facial expressions in POVs such as the one in (187a) convey the emotions of the respective subjects, in this case the boy and the dog looking at the jar with affection.

Maria’s consistent and contrastive use of loci to establish and maintain reference is documented in numerous examples in this narrative. The sequence in (188) concerns the narrative passage, in which Maria recounts that the dog looks closer at the beehive. The dog’s spotting of the beehive is expressed through a POV signalled via a lexical NP (the dog) and a change in body orientation and eye gaze direction to the left. Notice not only that the loci associated with the object argument of the verb spot in (188a) and det_exist in (188b) coincide, but also that Maria picks up the same locus to mark agreement with the object argument of the verb look-at in (188d).

For further illustration of Maria’s skilful use of agreement verbs and det_exist we might consider the examples in (189), (190) and (191), which are part of the final narrative event of the frog story. In (189) Maria establishes the locus associated with the frog family sitting behind a log (the loci associated with the object argument of see, the locative argument of sit and det_exist coincide). Reference is correctly maintained in (190) and (191) as the verb pick-up in (190) and the verb wave in (191) agree with the locus established previously to her right. A note is due on the h2-classifier used in (190) and (191), two utterances that are part of a longer discourse stretch, in which this classifier is used as a discourse buoy. By retaining the classifier, the backgrounded information about the frog’s location on the palm of the boy’s hand is provided simultaneously to the description of the boy’s subsequent activities (that is, his waving and subsequent leaving the scene).

We have seen previously that Maria associated referential loci on the vertical axis (bottom-top) in a contrastive manner to signal and mark POVs involving the boy with his dog and the frog respectively. Regarding the distribution of referential loci in the sign space, the preceding sequences in (188) vs. (189)-(191) illustrate Maria’s contrastive choice of loci associated with locations to the left vs. the right side, to refer to the dog and the boy respectively. Referential shifts are marked accordingly through body orientation and eye gaze direction toward the respective side. The consistent use of referential loci to maintain reference not only contributes significantly to the comprehension of the narrative; the contrastive distribution of referential loci allows Maria to creatively shift reference for narrative purposes. The result is a lively narrative, in which we learn not only about the characters’ emotions (recall the passage in (187) in which the protagonists look at each other with affection) but also about their interaction. Consider in this respect he sequence in (192), in which the boy tells the dog to be quiet (cf. (192a)), the dog, in turn, asks the boy about the reason why (cf. (192b)), and the boy insists that he be quiet (cf. (192c- d)). Notice that the interaction between the two characters affects (a) the choice of non-manual means used to mark the respective POVs, and (b) the choice of loci associated with the respective addressees in the reported dialogue: the POV with the boy as a subject in (192a) is marked through a change of body orientation to the left and eye gaze in this direction, toward the bottom of the sign space (which corresponds with the locus associated with the dog as the addressee). The POV involving the dog as a subject in (192b), in turn, is marked through a change of body orientation to the right and eye gaze in this direction, toward the top of the sign space (which corresponds with the locus associated with the boy as the addressee).

Reference forms and functions. In file 1, Maria uses determiners only occasionally. The use of pronouns for the reintroduction of referents is illustrated in example

(184a) above, a sequence in which two referents, the boy and the dog, are reintroduced after a description of the frogs’ activities. Later in the narrative, the DGS pronoun [pron_pers]_{1 2} (‘both’) is also used to refer to the boy and the dog, and the two frog parents respectively. In (193) the boy is reintroduced as a protagonist via det_self.

The rare use of det_art and det_loc to establish loci contrasts with the frequent use of det_exist serving this function, as we could see in numerous examples discussed previously (consider, for example (179) and (189) above). Crucially, as we remarked upon above, this determiner is part of a sophisticated use of referential loci in the sign space to establish and maintain reference.

Maria uses an NP to refer to the boy only once, when he is introduced as a protagonist at the beginning of the story. By contrast, referents other than the boy are reintroduced via NPs. The distribution of reference forms and functions used to refer to the boy as a protagonist patterns with the distribution of reference forms in the narratives of other participants in this study (compare, for example, the data obtained for Simon); however, although the relative frequency of subject drop in reintroduction contexts is relatively high (35.7%) it is lower than that of NPs serving the same function (50%) (subject drop makes up 6.9% out of a total of 19.4% of forms serving the function of reintroduction, cf. Table 3.26 and Figure 3.5). However, subject drop does not lead to the type of referential ambiguity remarked upon previously. Crucially, as Maria makes a consistent use of referential loci in the sign space, and also marks referential shifts in accordance with the loci of the arguments encoded, there is no room for referential ambiguities in her narrative.

Table 3.26: Reference forms and functions in Maria’ file 1.*

*Expressed as a percentage of the total number of reference forms (proportions of forms used for respective function in brackets). Absolute numbers are provided in the Appendix Table C-5.

Figure 3.5: Proportion of reference forms and functions in Maria’s file 1.

Expression of spatial relations. Maria expresses spatial relations in a clear manner from the onset of the study, which contributes significantly to the coherence of the story produced. Complex classifier constructions in her file 1 narrative not only document Maria’s productive use of h2-classifiers to background information (for example, about the location in which the frog is sitting in example (187d) above, or a location inside a tree hole in example (179c) above); they also reflect Maria’s advanced narrative level as is illustrated in example (194), a remarkable construction in which Maria describes the frog’s moving around in the oppressively small jar. Notice that the location (a jar), specified at the beginning of the story (cf. (177) above), is specified once again prior to the complex classifier construction, by remarking additionally on the oppressively small size of the object. Clearly, Maria’s detailed narration stands out against other recounts of the frog story, in which descriptions remain generic and activities are described in a successive manner, without information on their relation.

As we can glean from Table 3.1 information on the ground is always specified first via lexical antecedents (full NPs). Where information is later backgrounded, Maria uses either h2-classifiers (in FRFs) or classifier-elements (in SRFs).

Table 3.27: Expression of figure-ground relations in Maria’s file 1.*

Summarising, the analysis of file 1 reveals that Maria produces a remarkable narrative with all narrative events described in an appropriate manner, using the linguistic devices available in a competent way, to create cohesion and coherence.