The document discusses binding theory and how it applies to pronouns in sign languages. It notes that while principles like Principle B work well in ASL, they do not seem to apply consistently in some other sign languages like Croatian Sign Language. Russian Sign Language is also discussed, where non-reflexive pronouns can be used to express coreference even when arguments are co-referential, unlike predictions of binding theory. The document analyzes these phenomena in light of semantic versus syntactic formulations of binding.

1. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Russian Sign Language Pronouns, Indexicality
and the Signing Space
Pavel Rudnev and Vadim Kimmelman
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; Universiteit van Amsterdam
..
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

2. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Outline
. Binding eory
 Data
.
 Analysis
.
Lack of ambiguity
Indices cannot be bound
Signing space and indexicality
 Conclusions
.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

3. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Binding theory
Basic Binding eory (Chomsky ):
• P A: An anaphor must be bound in its governing
category
• P B: A pronominal must be free in its governing
category
() Johni saw himselfi .
() Johni saw him*i/j .
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

4. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

5. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
• Semantic binding ̸= coreference
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

6. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
• Semantic binding ̸= coreference
• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

7. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
• Semantic binding ̸= coreference
• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.
• Every boy thinks he is a genius.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

8. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
• Semantic binding ̸= coreference
• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.
• Every boy thinks he is a genius.
• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

9. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Semantic vs. syntactic binding
Reinhart () suggested that the binding principles should be
formulated in semantic and not in syntactic terms.
• Semantic binding ̸= coreference
• I saw John yesterday. He was tired.
• Every boy thinks he is a genius.
• P A: An anaphor must be semantically bound ⟨. . .⟩
• Principle B: A pronominal must be semantically free ⟨. . .⟩
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

10. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
e Coreference Rule (Büring )
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

11. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
e Coreference Rule (Büring )
• e Coreference Rule: if semantic binding and coreference yield
indistinguishable interpretations, then semantic binding is
preferred.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

12. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
e Coreference Rule (Büring )
• e Coreference Rule: if semantic binding and coreference yield
indistinguishable interpretations, then semantic binding is
preferred.
() Johni saw himselfi .
() Johni saw him*i/j .
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

13. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
How to detect semantic binding
() Only Johni loves himselfi .
= ‘John loves John, and nobody else loves him/herself.’
= *‘John loves John, and nobody else loves John.’
() Only Johni loves hisi wife.
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves John’s wife.’
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves his own wife.’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

14. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
How to detect semantic binding
() Only Johni loves himselfi .
= ‘John loves John, and nobody else loves him/herself.’
= *‘John loves John, and nobody else loves John.’
() Only Johni loves hisi wife.
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves John’s wife.’
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves his own wife.’
() John loves himself, and Bill too.
() John loves his wife, and Bill too.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

15. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
How to detect semantic binding
() Only Johni loves himselfi .
= ‘John loves John, and nobody else loves him/herself.’
= *‘John loves John, and nobody else loves John.’
() Only Johni loves hisi wife.
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves John’s wife.’
= ‘John loves John’s wife, and nobody else loves his own wife.’
() John loves himself, and Bill too.
() John loves his wife, and Bill too.
() Everyonei loves himselfi /*himi .
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

16. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
ASL: everything is OK
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

17. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
ASL: everything is OK
• ere is a re exive pronoun  and non-re exive pronouns
(pointing signs).
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

18. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
ASL: everything is OK
• ere is a re exive pronoun  and non-re exive pronouns
(pointing signs).
• Principle B works:
()      /*
‘Mary does not want to criticize herself ’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

19. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
ASL: everything is OK
• ere is a re exive pronoun  and non-re exive pronouns
(pointing signs).
• Principle B works:
()      /*
‘Mary does not want to criticize herself ’
e re exive pronouns  is also an intensi er (Koulidobrova ).
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

20. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Croatian Sign Language: something is not OK
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

21. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Croatian Sign Language: something is not OK
In the data discussed here, there was only one HZJ example
with “he sees REFLEX in the mirror”, so it is not known if it is
obligatory or not. In discussion with participants, some of
them said that it is obligatory and some that it is not. is
function requires further investigation.
(Alibašić Ciciliani and Wilbur )
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

22. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Croatian Sign Language: something is not OK
In the data discussed here, there was only one HZJ example
with “he sees REFLEX in the mirror”, so it is not known if it is
obligatory or not. In discussion with participants, some of
them said that it is obligatory and some that it is not. is
function requires further investigation.
(Alibašić Ciciliani and Wilbur )
• According to Ronnie Wilbur (p.c.), Principle B does indeed not
work in HZJ as well as it does in ASL.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

23. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Russian Sign Language and NGT
e fact
In Russian Sign Language non-re exive pronouns can be used to
express co-reference even in the co-argument context.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

24. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Russian Sign Language and NGT
e fact
In Russian Sign Language non-re exive pronouns can be used to
express co-reference even in the co-argument context.
() a. -  
‘He paints himself (a picture of himself)’
b. -  -
‘He paints himself (lit.: He paints him)’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

25. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Russian Sign Language and NGT
e fact
In Russian Sign Language non-re exive pronouns can be used to
express co-reference even in the co-argument context.
() a. -  
‘He paints himself (a picture of himself)’
b. -  -
‘He paints himself (lit.: He paints him)’
• e same can be shown for Sign Language of the Netherlands
(NGT).
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

26. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in spoken languages
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

27. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in spoken languages
Enç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

28. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in spoken languages
Enç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.
First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:
() I believe in me.
() I bought me a new coat.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

29. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in spoken languages
Enç () discusses Principle B obviations in spoken languages.
First-person pronouns in (some variants of) English:
() I believe in me.
() I bought me a new coat.
In Turkish rst- and second-person non-re exive pronouns can
obviate Principle B:
() a. Ben beni akıllı sanıyordum.
I I- smart thought
‘I considered myself smart’
b. Sen seni akıllı sanıyordun.
you you. smart thought
‘You considered yourself smart’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

30. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Some more facts from RSL
Quanti er binding
In RSL only the re exive pronoun can be bound by a co-argument
quanti er in the subject position, while non-re exive pronouns
cannot.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

31. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Some more facts from RSL
Quanti er binding
In RSL only the re exive pronoun can be bound by a co-argument
quanti er in the subject position, while non-re exive pronouns
cannot.
() a.  -  
‘Each boy paints himself ’
b.  -  -
‘Each boy paints the boys as a group (not himself)’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

32. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Some more facts from RSL
Quanti er binding
In RSL only the re exive pronoun can be bound by a co-argument
quanti er in the subject position, while non-re exive pronouns
cannot.
() a.  -  
‘Each boy paints himself ’
b.  -  -
‘Each boy paints the boys as a group (not himself)’
• It means that  can be used to express coreference only in the
coargument domain, while  is used to express the
bound-variable reading in the same domain.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

33. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Some more facts from RSL
Quanti er binding
In RSL only the re exive pronoun can be bound by a co-argument
quanti er in the subject position, while non-re exive pronouns
cannot.
() a.  -  
‘Each boy paints himself ’
b.  -  -
‘Each boy paints the boys as a group (not himself)’
• It means that  can be used to express coreference only in the
coargument domain, while  is used to express the
bound-variable reading in the same domain.
• is is an obviation of the Coreference Rule. . . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

34. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in English
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

35. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Similar facts in English
• In English a rst-person pronoun in the co-argument context
expresses coreference only:
() *Everyonei saw mei .
() I bought me a new coat, and you did too. (It can only mean
that you bought me a new coat)
() Only I bought me a new coat. (It can only mean that no one
else bought me a new coat)
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

36. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Possible explanations
Outline
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

37. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Possible explanations
Outline
• Lack of ambiguity
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

38. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Possible explanations
Outline
• Lack of ambiguity
• Addition: indices cannot be bound
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

39. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Possible explanations
Outline
• Lack of ambiguity
• Addition: indices cannot be bound
• Signing space and more
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

40. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
An obvious explanation
Lack of ambiguity
In RSL (and other sign languages) pointing unambiguously identi es
the referents. erefore, coreference is easily expressed by
non-re exive pronouns and re exives are not necessary. e same can
be said about rst and second-person pronouns in spoken languages.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

41. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
An obvious explanation
Lack of ambiguity
In RSL (and other sign languages) pointing unambiguously identi es
the referents. erefore, coreference is easily expressed by
non-re exive pronouns and re exives are not necessary. e same can
be said about rst and second-person pronouns in spoken languages.
Enç () claimed that indexicals are [+anchored] by the context and
therefore can obviate Principle B. e motivation behind this is that
they lack ambiguity.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

42. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : In reality there is some ambiguity in pointing in SL.
For instance, between the location and the referent located there
(RSL):
()    -. - 
‘Here is the boy’s house. It/he is big’.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

43. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : In reality there is some ambiguity in pointing in SL.
For instance, between the location and the referent located there
(RSL):
()    -. - 
‘Here is the boy’s house. It/he is big’.
• Still there is much less ambigity in sign languages.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

44. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : In reality there is some ambiguity in pointing in SL.
For instance, between the location and the referent located there
(RSL):
()    -. - 
‘Here is the boy’s house. It/he is big’.
• Still there is much less ambigity in sign languages.
• Problem : Re exive pronouns are still present in RSL, ASL, ISL,
CrSL, French SL, SL of the Netherlands and, most likely, in other
SLs. Re exive pronouns are used in rst- and second-person
cases in English and Turkish.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

45. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

46. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : Ambiguity (or the lack of it) is not involved in the
formal Binding eory (Büring ).
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

47. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : Ambiguity (or the lack of it) is not involved in the
formal Binding eory (Büring ).
• Problem : e impossibility to bind the non-re exive pronouns
in the co-argument context (as opposed to coreference) is not
explained in any way.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

48. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Lack of ambiguity
Problems  and 
• Problem : Ambiguity (or the lack of it) is not involved in the
formal Binding eory (Büring ).
• Problem : e impossibility to bind the non-re exive pronouns
in the co-argument context (as opposed to coreference) is not
explained in any way.
() a.  -  
‘Each boy paints himself ’
b.  -  -
‘Each boy paints the boys as a group (not himself)’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

49. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
Maybe problem  is connected to indexicality?
Could it be the pointing/indexical nature of non-re exive pronouns
which prevents them from being bound (and thus re exives are still
handy)?
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

50. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
Maybe problem  is connected to indexicality?
Could it be the pointing/indexical nature of non-re exive pronouns
which prevents them from being bound (and thus re exives are still
handy)?
• In ASL and ISL re exive pronouns are also pointing signs. We
can deduce that nevertheless they can be bound.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

51. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
Maybe problem  is connected to indexicality?
Could it be the pointing/indexical nature of non-re exive pronouns
which prevents them from being bound (and thus re exives are still
handy)?
• In ASL and ISL re exive pronouns are also pointing signs. We
can deduce that nevertheless they can be bound.
• In non-co-argument contexts in RSL pointing signs can be
bound.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

52. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
More facts
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

53. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
More facts
• In RSL the re exive sign can be accompanied by pointing. In this
case pointing does not prevent binding:
() a.  -  +-
‘e boy paints himself ’
b.  -  +-
‘Every boy paints himself.’
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

54. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Indices cannot be bound
More facts
• In RSL the re exive sign can be accompanied by pointing. In this
case pointing does not prevent binding:
() a.  -  +-
‘e boy paints himself ’
b.  -  +-
‘Every boy paints himself.’
• In English rst-person pronouns in principle can be bound:
() Only I think that I passed the exam.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

55. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Back to the Coreference Rule
() a. Johni saw himselfi .
b. Johni saw him*i/j .
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

56. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Back to the Coreference Rule
() a. Johni saw himselfi .
b. Johni saw him*i/j .
• In (-b) him cannot be coreferent with John because it would
mean coreference instead of binding, so (-a) is preferred.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

57. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Breaking the Coreference Rule
is means that in RSL (and in spoken languages) the Coreference
Rule is broken:
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

58. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Breaking the Coreference Rule
is means that in RSL (and in spoken languages) the Coreference
Rule is broken:
• Re exive pronouns are used to express the bound-variable
reading, while pointing – to express co-reference.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

59. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Breaking the Coreference Rule
is means that in RSL (and in spoken languages) the Coreference
Rule is broken:
• Re exive pronouns are used to express the bound-variable
reading, while pointing – to express co-reference.
• ere is no difference in interpretation between re exive and
non-re exive pronouns:
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

60. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Breaking the Coreference Rule
is means that in RSL (and in spoken languages) the Coreference
Rule is broken:
• Re exive pronouns are used to express the bound-variable
reading, while pointing – to express co-reference.
• ere is no difference in interpretation between re exive and
non-re exive pronouns:
() a. -  
‘He paints himself ’
b. -  -
‘He paints himself ’
() I bought me/myself a new coat.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

61. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e Coreference Rule again
What is the motivation behind the claim that semantic binding is
preferred over coreference?
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

62. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e Coreference Rule again
What is the motivation behind the claim that semantic binding is
preferred over coreference?
e economy rationale behind this strategy is that variable binding
is a more economical means to identify referential identity of two
expressions. Actual assignment of reference, at the interface,
requires relating an expression to the set of entities in the discourse
(model, domain or whatever). In the case of variable binding, ⟨. . .⟩,
this procedure has to apply once, identifying the value of one of the
arguments. In all other cases, it has to apply to each argument.
⟨. . .⟩ If what is intended is the referential identity of these
arguments, applying the same procedure twice, when we could have
done it only once, is uneconomical.
(Reinhart :)
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

63. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages
Spoken languages Sign languages
Referent Referent
Real world Real world
Signing space
Locus A
him IX-A
The boy himself BOY IX-A SELF
Discourse Discourse
Syntax
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

64. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e role of signing space
e main hypothesis
Signing space in SL is a part of syntax (computational system).
Coindexation in syntax is not as costly as coreference via reference
assignment.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

65. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e role of signing space
e main hypothesis
Signing space in SL is a part of syntax (computational system).
Coindexation in syntax is not as costly as coreference via reference
assignment.
• e apparent breaches of the Coreference Rule in RSL are
explained.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

66. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e role of signing space
e main hypothesis
Signing space in SL is a part of syntax (computational system).
Coindexation in syntax is not as costly as coreference via reference
assignment.
• e apparent breaches of the Coreference Rule in RSL are
explained.
• Ambiguity is not involved in the explanation of binding in RSL.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

67. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Is this idea new?
• e answer is: no.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

68. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Is this idea new?
• e answer is: no.
• Lillo-Martin and Klima (): “… an R-locus in ASL is part of
the vocabulary of form”
• In other words, semantic indices are overtly expressed in syntax
in ASL. Indices therefore are syntactic objects in ASL.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

69. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Is this idea new?
• e answer is: no.
• Lillo-Martin and Klima (): “… an R-locus in ASL is part of
the vocabulary of form”
• In other words, semantic indices are overtly expressed in syntax
in ASL. Indices therefore are syntactic objects in ASL.
Spoken languages
is can also explain the spoken language data: it is possible to
postulate that indices are present in syntax in rst- and second-person
pronouns.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

70. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages
Spoken languages Sign languages
Referent Referent
Real world Real world
Signing space
Locus A
him IX-A
The boy himself BOY IX-A SELF
Discourse Discourse
Syntax
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

71. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
Reference assignment in SL and spoken languages-
Spoken languages Sign languages
Referent Referent
Real world Real world
Indexes Signing space
Index i Locus A
him me IX-A
I
The boy himself BOY IX-A SELF
Discourse Discourse
Syntax
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

72. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e problem of optionality
• ASL also has signing space. Why is the Coreference Rule not
broken in it?
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

73. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e problem of optionality
• ASL also has signing space. Why is the Coreference Rule not
broken in it?
• In Russian rst- and second-person pronouns cannot obviate the
Coreference Rule.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

74. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Signing space and indexicality
e problem of optionality
• ASL also has signing space. Why is the Coreference Rule not
broken in it?
• In Russian rst- and second-person pronouns cannot obviate the
Coreference Rule.
Hypothesis
Whether a language considers co-indexation in syntax economical is
subject to variation.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

75. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
Conclusions
• Insights from sign languages can be applied to spoken languages.
• Indices are present in syntax in sign languages (via signing space)
and in spoken languages (via indexicals).
• Coreference Rule obviations in RSL and in spoken languages are
uniformly explained.
• Ambiguity (or lack thereof) is not involved in the explanation.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

76. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
References 
Büring, D. . Binding eory. Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. . Lectures on government and binding.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Enç, M. . Anchored expressions. In M. Barlow, D.P. Flickinger
& M.T. Westcoat (eds.) Proceedings of WCCFL : –. CSLI
Publications.
Lillo-Martin, D. and E.S. Klima. . Pointing out differences:
ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In S.D. Fischer & P. Siple (eds.)
eoretical issues in sign language research: –.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman

77. Binding eory Data Analysis Conclusions
. . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
References 
Reinhart, T. . Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement
of anaphora question. Language and Philosophy. . –.
Reinhart, T. . Interface strategies. Ms, University of Utrecht.
Sandler, W. and D. Lillo-Martin. . Sign Language and
Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.
. . . . . .
RSL pronouns, indexicality and Signing Space Rudnev – Kimmelman