Classifier constructions in sign languages: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
←Redirected page to Classifier (linguistics)
 
Created article.
Tags: Removed redirect Visual edit
Line 1: Line 1:
The term '''classifier construction''' is used in [[Sign language|sign languages]] studies to refer to a complex [[Morphology|morphological]] system that expresses events and states.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=76}} In these constructions, the [[handshape]] is said to be a "classifier" which can represent motion, position, stative-descriptive information and/or handling information. These constructions are highly [[Iconicity|iconic]], meaning that the connection between the form of the sign and its meaning is not [[Arbitrariness#Linguistics|arbitrary]].{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=254}} Due to their complexity, they are not fully mastered until the age of 8 or 9.
#Redirect [[Classifier (linguistics)]]

A sign that is [[Lexicalization|lexicalized]] (i.e. a word) consists of three [[Phonology|phonological]] parameters: handshape, location and movement. These parameters are not [[Morpheme|morphemic]], meaning they are not meaningful on their own. In classifier constructions, however, each parameter ''is'' morphemic: the handshape represents an entity, the movement iconically represents the movement of that entity, and the relative location of the classifiers in a two-handed construction may represent the relative location of the entities.

[[Nancy Frishberg|Frishberg]] coined the word "classifier" in this context in her 1975 paper on [[American Sign Language]]. Linguists have since then debated on how best to analyze these constructions, with some of them questioning their linguistic status, as well as the very use of term "classifier".{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=253-254}}

== History ==
In the early days of sign language research, classifier constructions were not regarded as full linguistic systems due to their high degree of iconicity and apparent variability.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=11}} It wasn't until the 1960s that sign language were being studied seriously. The focus was on proving that sign languages were real languages, thus linguists paid less attention to the iconic properties of classifier constructions and more to the grammatical organization.{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}}

[[Nancy Frishberg|Frishberg]] was the first to use the term "classifier" in her 1975 paper on arbitrariness and iconicity in [[American Sign Language]] (ASL) to refer to the handshape unit used in classifier constructions.{{Sfn|Frishberg|1975}}{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=252}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=9}} The first linguist to show that classifier constructions were actually part of a complex [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] system was [[Ted Supalla|Supalla]] in 1982.{{Sfn|Supalla|1982}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=11}} He also split the classifier handshapes into two main categories: Size and Shape Specifiers (SASSes) and semantic classifiers, although linguists would later come to refer to the latter as "entity classifiers".{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=77}} SASS categories use handshapes to describe the visual properties of an entity; entity classifier are less iconic, referring to a general semantic class of objects such as "thin and straight" or "flat and round".{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=77-78}} Handling classifiers, which imitate the hand holding or handling an instrument, would be the third type of classifier to be described.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=77-78}} A fourth type, the body-part classifier, represents a human or animal body parts, usually the limbs.{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|p=50|Wood|2019}}

In 1977, [[Keith Allan (linguist)|Allan]] performed a survey of [[Classifier (linguistics)|classifier]] systems in spoken languages. He drew similarities between the classifiers in sign languages and the seemingly similar "predicate classifiers" used in the [[Athabaskan languages|Athabaskan]] languages,{{Sfn|Keith|1977}} a family of oral [[Indigenous languages of the Americas|indigenous languages]] spoken throughout North America.{{Sfn|Fernald|Platero|p=3|2000}} These comparisons were made out of a desire to standardize terminology and to prove that sign languages are not fundamentally dissimilar to spoken languages.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=10-11}} Allan described predicate classifiers as separate verbal [[Morpheme|morphemes]] that denote some salient aspect of the associated noun.{{Sfn|Keith|1977}} However, [[Adam Schembri|Schembri]] pointed out the "terminological confusion" surrounded classifiers,{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=15}} and Allan's description and comparison to the classifiers in sign languages drew criticism. Later analyses showed that these predicate classifiers did not constitute separate morphemes and were better described as classificatory verbs stems rather than classifiers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=13-14}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=88}}

Similar to Allan, [[Colette Grinevald|Grinevald]] also compared sign language classifiers to spoken classifiers in 2000.{{Sfn|Grinevald|2000|p=}} Specifically, she focused on verbal classifier, which act as verbal affixes.{{Sfn|Aronoff|Meir|p=63-64|Padden|Sandler|2003}} She lists the following example from [[Cayuga language|Cayuga]], an [[Iroquoian languages|Iroquian]] language:{{Sfn|Grinevald|2000|p=67}}

::Skitu ake’-treht-ae’
::skidoo I-C L(vehicle)-have
::‘I have a car.’

The classifier for the word vehicle in Cayuga, ''-treht-'', is similar to whole entity classifiers in sign languages. Similar examples have been found in [[Diegueño language|Digueño]], which has morphemes that act like extension and surface classifiers in sign languages. Both examples are attached to the verb and cannot stand alone.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=84}}

In the 1990s, a renewed interested in the relation between sign languages and [[gesture]] took place.{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}} Some linguists, such as [[Scott Liddell|Liddell]] in 2000, called the linguistic status of classifier constructions into question. Reasons for doing so include the similar nature of the imitative gestures of non-signers{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}} and the very large amount of movement types and locations that can be used in these constructions. Liddell suggested that it would be more accurate to consider them to be a mixture of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements, such as gesture.{{Sfn|Liddell|2000}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=9}}{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=256}} Schembri et al. similarly suggested in 2005 that classifier constructions are "blends of linguistic and gestural elements".{{Sfn|Schembri|Jones|p=|Burnham|2005}} Regardless of the high degree of variability, classifier constructions are still grammatically restrained by various factors; they are also more abstract and categorical than the gestural forms made by non-signers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=26}}

Despite the many proposed alternative names to the term classifier,{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=4}} and questionable relationship to spoken language classifiers,{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=90}} it continues to be a commonly used term in sign language research.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=90}}
== Categories ==
In classifier constructions, the [[handshape]] represent an entity which can be combined with movement to express the movement of that entity, although there are constraints on what combinations are possible.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=74}} In two-handed classifier construction expressing an entity's location, the first sign usually represent the unmoving [[Figure–ground (perception)|ground]] (for example a surface) whereas the second sign represent the [[Figure–ground (perception)|figure]] in focus (for example a person walking).{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|Wood|2019|p=51}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=86}} This is in contrast to lexical signs, in which the dominant and non-dominant hand do not contribute to the meaning of the sign on their own.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=78-79}} Another different is that in classifier constructions the handshape, movement and location are meaningful on their own, unlike in lexical signs.{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|Wood|2019|p=49}} While the choice for the handshape is usually determined by the visual aspects of the entity in question,{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=22}} there are also other factors. The way in which the doer [[Agent (grammar)|(agent]]) interacts with the entity{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=22-23}} or the entity's movement{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=24}} can also affect the handshape choice.
There have been many attempts at classifying the types of classifiers with the amount of proposed types ranging from two to seven.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=9-10}} In 1993, Engberg-Pedersen grouped the handshapes used in classifier constructions in four categories:{{Sfn|Engberg-Pedersen|1993}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=76}}

* '''Whole entity classifiers''': The handshape represents a concept, such as a person; car; pencil or piece of paper in its entirety. It can also represent a non-physical concept, such as culture.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=78}}
* '''Handling/instrument classifiers''': The handshape represents the hands handling an entity or instrument, such as a knife. They resemble whole entity classifiers, but they [[Semantics|semantically]] imply an agent handling the entity. Just as with whole entity classifier, the entity in handling classifiers does not have to be a physical object.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=80}}
* '''Limb classifiers''': The handshape represents limbs such as legs, feet or paws.
* '''Extension and surface classifiers''': The handshape represents the depth or width of an entity. For example, a thin wire, a narrow board or the wide surface of a car's roof.

Engberg-Pedersen grouped the handshape's movement similarly:{{Sfn|Engberg-Pedersen|1993}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=76}}

* '''Location morphemes''':{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=74}} Movement represent the location of an entity through a short, downward movement. The entity's orientation can be represented by shifting the hand's orientation.
*'''Motion morphemes''': Movement represents the entity's movement along a path.
*'''Manner morphemes''': Movement represents the manner of motion, but not the path.
*'''Extension morphemes''': Movement does not represent actual motion, but the outline of the entity's shape or perimeter. It can also represent the configuration of multiple similar entities, such as a line of books.

Due to the availability of two independent articulators (the hands), it is possible to represent the location or movement of two entities at the same time, although there are limitations. For example, it is impossible to describe a woman walking past a zigzagging car by articulating both movements simultaneously. This is because two simultaneous constructions cannot have differing movements; one would have to describe the movements sequentially.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=85-86}} Another example is the grammatical impossibility of combining certain types of classifiers and movements: manner of motion can not be combined with limb classifiers in ASL. To indicate a person limping in a circle, one must first sign the manner of motion (limping), then the limb classifiers (the legs).{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=81}}

=== Lexicalization ===
Certain classifier constructions may also, over time, lose their general meaning and become fully-fledged signs. This process is referred to as [[lexicalization]].{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=260}}{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=87}} For example, the ASL sign FALL seems to have come from a classifier construction. This classifier construction consist of a V-shaped hand, which represent the legs, moving down. As it become more like a sign, it could also be used with non-animate referents, like apples or boxes. As a sign, the former classifier construction now conforms to the usual constraints of a word, such as consisting of one syllable.{{Sfn|Aronoff|Meir|p=69-70|Padden|Sandler|2003}}

== Linguistic analysis ==
Linguists have been split on how to best characterize classifier constructions.{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=254}} Some linguists, like Supalla, see the classifier as a series of morphemes,{{Sfn|Supalla|1982}}{{Sfn|Benedicto|Brentari|2004|p=}} some consider it to be a partially lexicalized verb{{Sfn|Liddell|2003}} whereas others underscore the relation between the classifier's form and its meaning.{{Sfn|DeMatteo|1977}}{{Sfn|Cogill-Koez|2000}} DeMatteo, who falls in the latter group, claims that a traditional linguistic analysis is inadequate to fully account for the large amount of potential meaningful units. He views the movement in classifier constructions as "a spatial analogue of the movement in the real/imaginal world" rather than assigning a morpheme to each possible movement.{{Sfn|DeMatteo|1977}}{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=256-257}} Liddell disagrees with both Supalla's morphemic view and DeMatteo's visual analogy on the ground that they predict impossible constructions in ASL. He claims that in ASL Supalla's proposed classifier morphemes cannot combine freely with each other. DeMatteo's visual analogy, Liddell believes, doesn't account for the fact that certain movements cannot be combined with certain classifiers (such as an animal classifier "walking" in a straight path), despite it being an iconic representation of the event.{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=258-259}} Similarly, Engberg-Pedersen claims that morphemic view of classifier constructions doesn't explain why signers reject many specific combinations of these morphemes.{{Sfn|Engberg-Pedersen|2003|p=312}}

If the handshape is taken to consist of multiple morphemes, which many linguists do, it is uncertain how many morphemes there actually are. For example, the fingertips in [[Swedish Sign Language]] can be bent in order to represent the front of a car getting damaged in a crash; this led Supalla to posit that each finger might act as a separate morpheme.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=18-20}} Liddell found that to analyse a classifier construction in ASL where one person walks to another would require anywhere between 14 and 28 morphemes.{{Sfn|Liddell|2003|p=205-206}} Other linguists however consider the handshape to consist of one, solitary morpheme. Asking signers for judgement of grammaticality has not yielded convincing evidence that all handshapes are multi-morphemic.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=18-20}}

=== Root ===
There have multiple attempts at determining which morpheme is the base, or "[[Root (linguistics)|root]]", in the classifier. Supalla considers the morpheme that expresses motion or location to be the verbal root to which the handshape morpheme is affixed. Several linguists, including Engberg-Pedersen, disagreed with Supalla's interpretation. They point out that the choice of handshape can fundamentally change how the handshape's movement is interpreted and consider the handshape to be the root. For example, putting a book on a shelf and a cat jumping on a shelf both use the same movement in ASL, despite being fundamentally different acts.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=21-22}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=88-91}} Yet other analyses treat handshape morphemes as a type of [[pronoun]].{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=88-91}}

== Acquisition ==
Unlike speaking children whose gestures sometimes resemble classifier constructions,{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=198}} children learning a sign languages acquire classifier constructions as part of a grammatical system, not as iconic representations of events. Although some components are mastered early on, children don't fully acquire the use of classifier constructions until the age of 8 or 9. The reason for this relatively late mastery is because child is required to learn how to coordinate both hands separately, express different viewpoint and execute complex movements correctly.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=194-195}} [[Brenda Schick|Schick]] found that the most difficult item to master were the handling classifiers followed by the extension and surface classifier; the whole entity classifiers had the least amount of production errors.{{Sfn|Schick|1990|p=}}

Children younger than five often omit the optional ground object entirely, mentioning only the figure. This could be because mentioning the ground and figure together requires proper coordination of both hands. It could also be because children have more difficulty learning optional structures in general. Simple movements are produced correctly as early as 2.6 years of age, although children might have difficulty correctly expressing more complex movements, such as arcs. Acquisition of location in classifier constructions depends on the complexity between the referents and the related spatial locations. Simple extension and surface classifiers are correctly produced at 4.5 years of age.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=196}} Children master the use of the correct classifier by the age of 5 to 6.{{Sfn|Morgan|Woll|2003|p=300}}

It is widely accepted that iconicity aids language acquisition in spoken languages, although the picture is less clear for sign languages.{{Sfn|Ortega|2017|p=}}{{Sfn|Thompson|2011|p=609}} Some have argued that iconicity plays no role in acquiring classifier construction. This is said to be because constructions are highly complex and aren't mastered until late childhood.{{Sfn|Ortega|2017|p=}} Other linguists claim that children as young as 3 years old can produce adult-like constructions,{{Sfn|Ortega|2017|p=}} although they only use one hand.{{Sfn|Slobin|2003|p=275}} [[Dan Slobin|Slobin]] found that children under 3 years of age seem to "bootstrap" natural gesture in order to facilitate acquisition of handshape.{{Sfn|Slobin|2003|p=272}}

== Citations ==
{{reflist}}

== References ==

{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |last1=Aronoff |first1=Mark |last2=Meir |first2=Irit |last3=Padden |first3=Carol |last4=Sandler |first4=Wendy |title=Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages |date=2003 |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |page=53-84 |chapter=Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=The Linguistics of Sign Languages|last=Baker|last2=van den Bogaerde||last3=Pfau||last4=Schermer|publisher=John Benjamins|year=2016|isbn=9789027212306|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Benedicto |first1=Elena |last2=Brentari |first2=Diane |title=Where did all the arguments go?: argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL |journal=Natural Language & Linguistic Theory |date=2004 |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=743–810 |doi=10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Sign Languages|last=Brentari|first=Diane|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0-521-88370-2|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Brentari |first1=Diane |last2=Fenlon |first2=Jordan |last3=Cormier |first3=Kearsy |title=Sign language phonology |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics |date=2018 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.117|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Cogill-Koez |first1=Dorothea |title=Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? |journal=Sign language & linguistics |volume=3 |pages=153-207 |doi=10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Cogill-Koez |first1=Dorothea |title=A model of signed language ‘classifier predicates’ as templated visual representation|journal=Sign language & linguistics |volume=3 |pages=209-236|doi=10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=DeMatteo |first1=Asa |title=On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language |date=1977 |pages=109-136|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Engberg-Pedersen |first1=Elisabeth |title=Space in Danish Sign Language. The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language |journal=Nordic Journal of Linguistics |date=1993 |volume=19 |pages=406 |doi=10.1017/S0332586500003115|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages|last=Engberg-Pedersen|first=Elisabeth|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum|year=2003|isbn=0-8058-4269-1|location=|pages=|chapter=How Composite Is a Fall? Adults’ and Children’s Descriptions of Different Types of Falls in Danish Sign Language|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Language, Cognition, and the Brain|last=Emmorey|first=Karen|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates|year=2008|isbn=1-4106-0398-9|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Emmorey |first1=Karen |last2=Melissa |first2=Herzig |title=Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages |publisher=Routledge |year=2008|isbn=978-0415653817 |page=222 |chapter=Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=The Athabaskan Languages: Perspectives on a Native American Language Family|last=Fernald|first=Theodore|last2=Platero|first2=Paul|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0195119473|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Grinevald |first1=Collete |title=Systems of nominal classifications| chapter=A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers |date=2000 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780521065238 |page=50-92|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Frishberg |first1=Nancy |title=Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language |journal=Language |date=1975 |pages=696-719 |doi=10.2307/412894|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Sign Languages: Structures and Contexts|last=Hill|first=Joseph|last2=Lillo-Martin|first2=Diane|last3=Wood|first3=Sandra|publisher=Routledge|year=2019|isbn=978-1-138-08916-7|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Keith |first1=Allan |title=Classifiers |journal=Language |date=1977 |volume=53 |pages=285-311 |doi=10.1353/lan.1977.0043|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Liddell |first1=Scott K|title=The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima |date=2000 |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=1-4106-0497-7 |pages=303-320|ref=harv}}
*{{cite book |last1=Liddell |first1=Scott K |title=Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780511615054|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Liddell |first1=Scott K|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages |date=2003 |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=0-8058-4269-1 |pages=199-220 |chapter=Sources of Meaning in ASL Classifier Predicates|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages|last=Morgan|first=Gary|last2=Woll|first2=Bencie|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum|year=2003|isbn=0-8058-4269-1|location=|pages=|chapter=The Development of Reference Switching Encoded Through Body Classifiers in British Sign Language|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Ortega|first=Gerardo|date=2017|title=Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review|url=|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=8|pages=|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280|issn=1664-1078|pmc=PMC5539242|pmid=28824480|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Sign Language and Linguistic Universals|last=Sandler|first=Wendy|last2=Lillo-Martin|first2=Diane|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0521483957|location=|pages=|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages|last=Schembri|first=Adam|publisher=Psychology Press|year=2003|isbn=978-0415653817|location=|pages=|chapter=Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Schembri |first1=Adam |last2=Jones |first2=Caroline |last3=Burnham |first3=Denis |title=Comparing Action Gestures and Classifier Verbs of Motion: Evidence From Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and Nonsigners' Gestures Without Speech |journal=The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education |date=2005 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=272–290 |doi=10.1093/deafed/eni029|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Schick |first1=Brenda |title=The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL |journal=Theoretical issues |date=1990 |pages=358-374|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Slobin |first1=Dan |title=A Cognitive/Functional Perspective on the Acquisition of “Classifiers” |date=2003 |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |page=271-296|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book |last1=Supalla |first1=Ted Roland |title=Structure and Acquisition of Verbs of Motion and Location in American Sign Language |date=1982|ref=harv}}
* {{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Robin L.|date=2011|title=Iconicity in Language Processing and Acquisition: What Signed Languages Reveal: Iconicity in Sign Language|url=|journal=Language and Linguistics Compass|language=|volume=5|issue=9|pages=603–616|doi=10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x|ref=harv}}

[[Category:Linguistics]]
[[Category:Sign languages]]

Revision as of 20:04, 18 July 2019

The term classifier construction is used in sign languages studies to refer to a complex morphological system that expresses events and states.[1] In these constructions, the handshape is said to be a "classifier" which can represent motion, position, stative-descriptive information and/or handling information. These constructions are highly iconic, meaning that the connection between the form of the sign and its meaning is not arbitrary.[2] Due to their complexity, they are not fully mastered until the age of 8 or 9.

A sign that is lexicalized (i.e. a word) consists of three phonological parameters: handshape, location and movement. These parameters are not morphemic, meaning they are not meaningful on their own. In classifier constructions, however, each parameter is morphemic: the handshape represents an entity, the movement iconically represents the movement of that entity, and the relative location of the classifiers in a two-handed construction may represent the relative location of the entities.

Frishberg coined the word "classifier" in this context in her 1975 paper on American Sign Language. Linguists have since then debated on how best to analyze these constructions, with some of them questioning their linguistic status, as well as the very use of term "classifier".[3]

History

In the early days of sign language research, classifier constructions were not regarded as full linguistic systems due to their high degree of iconicity and apparent variability.[4] It wasn't until the 1960s that sign language were being studied seriously. The focus was on proving that sign languages were real languages, thus linguists paid less attention to the iconic properties of classifier constructions and more to the grammatical organization.[5]

Frishberg was the first to use the term "classifier" in her 1975 paper on arbitrariness and iconicity in American Sign Language (ASL) to refer to the handshape unit used in classifier constructions.[6][7][8] The first linguist to show that classifier constructions were actually part of a complex morphological system was Supalla in 1982.[9][4] He also split the classifier handshapes into two main categories: Size and Shape Specifiers (SASSes) and semantic classifiers, although linguists would later come to refer to the latter as "entity classifiers".[10] SASS categories use handshapes to describe the visual properties of an entity; entity classifier are less iconic, referring to a general semantic class of objects such as "thin and straight" or "flat and round".[11] Handling classifiers, which imitate the hand holding or handling an instrument, would be the third type of classifier to be described.[11] A fourth type, the body-part classifier, represents a human or animal body parts, usually the limbs.[12]

In 1977, Allan performed a survey of classifier systems in spoken languages. He drew similarities between the classifiers in sign languages and the seemingly similar "predicate classifiers" used in the Athabaskan languages,[13] a family of oral indigenous languages spoken throughout North America.[14] These comparisons were made out of a desire to standardize terminology and to prove that sign languages are not fundamentally dissimilar to spoken languages.[15] Allan described predicate classifiers as separate verbal morphemes that denote some salient aspect of the associated noun.[13] However, Schembri pointed out the "terminological confusion" surrounded classifiers,[16] and Allan's description and comparison to the classifiers in sign languages drew criticism. Later analyses showed that these predicate classifiers did not constitute separate morphemes and were better described as classificatory verbs stems rather than classifiers.[17][18]

Similar to Allan, Grinevald also compared sign language classifiers to spoken classifiers in 2000.[19] Specifically, she focused on verbal classifier, which act as verbal affixes.[20] She lists the following example from Cayuga, an Iroquian language:[21]

Skitu ake’-treht-ae’
skidoo I-C L(vehicle)-have
‘I have a car.’

The classifier for the word vehicle in Cayuga, -treht-, is similar to whole entity classifiers in sign languages. Similar examples have been found in Digueño, which has morphemes that act like extension and surface classifiers in sign languages. Both examples are attached to the verb and cannot stand alone.[22]

In the 1990s, a renewed interested in the relation between sign languages and gesture took place.[5] Some linguists, such as Liddell in 2000, called the linguistic status of classifier constructions into question. Reasons for doing so include the similar nature of the imitative gestures of non-signers[5] and the very large amount of movement types and locations that can be used in these constructions. Liddell suggested that it would be more accurate to consider them to be a mixture of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements, such as gesture.[23][24][25] Schembri et al. similarly suggested in 2005 that classifier constructions are "blends of linguistic and gestural elements".[26] Regardless of the high degree of variability, classifier constructions are still grammatically restrained by various factors; they are also more abstract and categorical than the gestural forms made by non-signers.[27]

Despite the many proposed alternative names to the term classifier,[28] and questionable relationship to spoken language classifiers,[29] it continues to be a commonly used term in sign language research.[29]

Categories

In classifier constructions, the handshape represent an entity which can be combined with movement to express the movement of that entity, although there are constraints on what combinations are possible.[30] In two-handed classifier construction expressing an entity's location, the first sign usually represent the unmoving ground (for example a surface) whereas the second sign represent the figure in focus (for example a person walking).[31][32] This is in contrast to lexical signs, in which the dominant and non-dominant hand do not contribute to the meaning of the sign on their own.[33] Another different is that in classifier constructions the handshape, movement and location are meaningful on their own, unlike in lexical signs.[34] While the choice for the handshape is usually determined by the visual aspects of the entity in question,[35] there are also other factors. The way in which the doer (agent) interacts with the entity[36] or the entity's movement[37] can also affect the handshape choice.

There have been many attempts at classifying the types of classifiers with the amount of proposed types ranging from two to seven.[38] In 1993, Engberg-Pedersen grouped the handshapes used in classifier constructions in four categories:[39][40]

  • Whole entity classifiers: The handshape represents a concept, such as a person; car; pencil or piece of paper in its entirety. It can also represent a non-physical concept, such as culture.[41]
  • Handling/instrument classifiers: The handshape represents the hands handling an entity or instrument, such as a knife. They resemble whole entity classifiers, but they semantically imply an agent handling the entity. Just as with whole entity classifier, the entity in handling classifiers does not have to be a physical object.[42]
  • Limb classifiers: The handshape represents limbs such as legs, feet or paws.
  • Extension and surface classifiers: The handshape represents the depth or width of an entity. For example, a thin wire, a narrow board or the wide surface of a car's roof.

Engberg-Pedersen grouped the handshape's movement similarly:[39][40]

  • Location morphemes:[30] Movement represent the location of an entity through a short, downward movement. The entity's orientation can be represented by shifting the hand's orientation.
  • Motion morphemes: Movement represents the entity's movement along a path.
  • Manner morphemes: Movement represents the manner of motion, but not the path.
  • Extension morphemes: Movement does not represent actual motion, but the outline of the entity's shape or perimeter. It can also represent the configuration of multiple similar entities, such as a line of books.

Due to the availability of two independent articulators (the hands), it is possible to represent the location or movement of two entities at the same time, although there are limitations. For example, it is impossible to describe a woman walking past a zigzagging car by articulating both movements simultaneously. This is because two simultaneous constructions cannot have differing movements; one would have to describe the movements sequentially.[43] Another example is the grammatical impossibility of combining certain types of classifiers and movements: manner of motion can not be combined with limb classifiers in ASL. To indicate a person limping in a circle, one must first sign the manner of motion (limping), then the limb classifiers (the legs).[44]

Lexicalization

Certain classifier constructions may also, over time, lose their general meaning and become fully-fledged signs. This process is referred to as lexicalization.[45][46] For example, the ASL sign FALL seems to have come from a classifier construction. This classifier construction consist of a V-shaped hand, which represent the legs, moving down. As it become more like a sign, it could also be used with non-animate referents, like apples or boxes. As a sign, the former classifier construction now conforms to the usual constraints of a word, such as consisting of one syllable.[47]

Linguistic analysis

Linguists have been split on how to best characterize classifier constructions.[2] Some linguists, like Supalla, see the classifier as a series of morphemes,[9][48] some consider it to be a partially lexicalized verb[49] whereas others underscore the relation between the classifier's form and its meaning.[50][51] DeMatteo, who falls in the latter group, claims that a traditional linguistic analysis is inadequate to fully account for the large amount of potential meaningful units. He views the movement in classifier constructions as "a spatial analogue of the movement in the real/imaginal world" rather than assigning a morpheme to each possible movement.[50][52] Liddell disagrees with both Supalla's morphemic view and DeMatteo's visual analogy on the ground that they predict impossible constructions in ASL. He claims that in ASL Supalla's proposed classifier morphemes cannot combine freely with each other. DeMatteo's visual analogy, Liddell believes, doesn't account for the fact that certain movements cannot be combined with certain classifiers (such as an animal classifier "walking" in a straight path), despite it being an iconic representation of the event.[53] Similarly, Engberg-Pedersen claims that morphemic view of classifier constructions doesn't explain why signers reject many specific combinations of these morphemes.[54]

If the handshape is taken to consist of multiple morphemes, which many linguists do, it is uncertain how many morphemes there actually are. For example, the fingertips in Swedish Sign Language can be bent in order to represent the front of a car getting damaged in a crash; this led Supalla to posit that each finger might act as a separate morpheme.[55] Liddell found that to analyse a classifier construction in ASL where one person walks to another would require anywhere between 14 and 28 morphemes.[56] Other linguists however consider the handshape to consist of one, solitary morpheme. Asking signers for judgement of grammaticality has not yielded convincing evidence that all handshapes are multi-morphemic.[55]

Root

There have multiple attempts at determining which morpheme is the base, or "root", in the classifier. Supalla considers the morpheme that expresses motion or location to be the verbal root to which the handshape morpheme is affixed. Several linguists, including Engberg-Pedersen, disagreed with Supalla's interpretation. They point out that the choice of handshape can fundamentally change how the handshape's movement is interpreted and consider the handshape to be the root. For example, putting a book on a shelf and a cat jumping on a shelf both use the same movement in ASL, despite being fundamentally different acts.[57][58] Yet other analyses treat handshape morphemes as a type of pronoun.[58]

Acquisition

Unlike speaking children whose gestures sometimes resemble classifier constructions,[59] children learning a sign languages acquire classifier constructions as part of a grammatical system, not as iconic representations of events. Although some components are mastered early on, children don't fully acquire the use of classifier constructions until the age of 8 or 9. The reason for this relatively late mastery is because child is required to learn how to coordinate both hands separately, express different viewpoint and execute complex movements correctly.[60] Schick found that the most difficult item to master were the handling classifiers followed by the extension and surface classifier; the whole entity classifiers had the least amount of production errors.[61]

Children younger than five often omit the optional ground object entirely, mentioning only the figure. This could be because mentioning the ground and figure together requires proper coordination of both hands. It could also be because children have more difficulty learning optional structures in general. Simple movements are produced correctly as early as 2.6 years of age, although children might have difficulty correctly expressing more complex movements, such as arcs. Acquisition of location in classifier constructions depends on the complexity between the referents and the related spatial locations. Simple extension and surface classifiers are correctly produced at 4.5 years of age.[62] Children master the use of the correct classifier by the age of 5 to 6.[63]

It is widely accepted that iconicity aids language acquisition in spoken languages, although the picture is less clear for sign languages.[64][65] Some have argued that iconicity plays no role in acquiring classifier construction. This is said to be because constructions are highly complex and aren't mastered until late childhood.[64] Other linguists claim that children as young as 3 years old can produce adult-like constructions,[64] although they only use one hand.[66] Slobin found that children under 3 years of age seem to "bootstrap" natural gesture in order to facilitate acquisition of handshape.[67]

Citations

  1. ^ Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 76.
  2. ^ a b Brentari 2010, p. 254.
  3. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 253-254.
  4. ^ a b Schembri 2003, p. 11.
  5. ^ a b c Brentari, Fenlon & Cormier 2018.
  6. ^ Frishberg 1975.
  7. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 252.
  8. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 9.
  9. ^ a b Supalla 1982.
  10. ^ Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 77.
  11. ^ a b Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 77-78.
  12. ^ Hill, Lillo-Martin & Wood 2019, p. 50.
  13. ^ a b Keith 1977.
  14. ^ Fernald & Platero 2000, p. 3.
  15. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 10-11.
  16. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 15.
  17. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 13-14.
  18. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 88.
  19. ^ Grinevald 2000.
  20. ^ Aronoff et al. 2003, p. 63-64.
  21. ^ Grinevald 2000, p. 67.
  22. ^ Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 84.
  23. ^ Liddell 2000.
  24. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 9.
  25. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 256.
  26. ^ Schembri, Jones & Burnham 2005.
  27. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 26.
  28. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 4.
  29. ^ a b Emmorey 2008, p. 90.
  30. ^ a b Emmorey 2008, p. 74.
  31. ^ Hill, Lillo-Martin & Wood 2019, p. 51.
  32. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 86.
  33. ^ Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 78-79.
  34. ^ Hill, Lillo-Martin & Wood 2019, p. 49.
  35. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 22.
  36. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 22-23.
  37. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 24.
  38. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 9-10.
  39. ^ a b Engberg-Pedersen 1993.
  40. ^ a b Emmorey 2008, p. 76.
  41. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 78.
  42. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 80.
  43. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 85-86.
  44. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 81.
  45. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 260.
  46. ^ Sandler & Lillo-Martin 2006, p. 87.
  47. ^ Aronoff et al. 2003, p. 69-70.
  48. ^ Benedicto & Brentari 2004.
  49. ^ Liddell 2003. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFLiddell2003 (help)
  50. ^ a b DeMatteo 1977.
  51. ^ Cogill-Koez 2000.
  52. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 256-257.
  53. ^ Brentari 2010, p. 258-259.
  54. ^ Engberg-Pedersen 2003, p. 312.
  55. ^ a b Schembri 2003, p. 18-20.
  56. ^ Liddell 2003, p. 205-206. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFLiddell2003 (help)
  57. ^ Schembri 2003, p. 21-22.
  58. ^ a b Emmorey 2008, p. 88-91.
  59. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 198.
  60. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 194-195.
  61. ^ Schick 1990.
  62. ^ Emmorey 2008, p. 196.
  63. ^ Morgan & Woll 2003, p. 300.
  64. ^ a b c Ortega 2017.
  65. ^ Thompson 2011, p. 609.
  66. ^ Slobin 2003, p. 275.
  67. ^ Slobin 2003, p. 272.

References

  • Aronoff, Mark; Meir, Irit; Padden, Carol; Sandler, Wendy (2003). "Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages". Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 53-84. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Baker; van den Bogaerde; Pfau; Schermer (2016). The Linguistics of Sign Languages. John Benjamins. ISBN 9789027212306. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Benedicto, Elena; Brentari, Diane (2004). "Where did all the arguments go?: argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 22 (4): 743–810. doi:10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Brentari, Diane (2010). Sign Languages. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-88370-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Brentari, Diane; Fenlon, Jordan; Cormier, Kearsy (2018). "Sign language phonology". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.117. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Cogill-Koez, Dorothea. "Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation?". Sign language & linguistics. 3: 153–207. doi:10.1075/sll.3.2.03cog. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Cogill-Koez, Dorothea. "A model of signed language 'classifier predicates' as templated visual representation". Sign language & linguistics. 3: 209–236. doi:10.1075/sll.3.2.04cog. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • DeMatteo, Asa (1977). On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. pp. 109–136. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (1993). "Space in Danish Sign Language. The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language". Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 19: 406. doi:10.1017/S0332586500003115. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (2003). "How Composite Is a Fall? Adults' and Children's Descriptions of Different Types of Falls in Danish Sign Language". Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-4269-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Emmorey, Karen (2008). Language, Cognition, and the Brain. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 1-4106-0398-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Emmorey, Karen; Melissa, Herzig (2008). "Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL". Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages. Routledge. p. 222. ISBN 978-0415653817. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Fernald, Theodore; Platero, Paul (2000). The Athabaskan Languages: Perspectives on a Native American Language Family. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195119473. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Grinevald, Collete (2000). "A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers". Systems of nominal classifications. Cambridge University Press. p. 50-92. ISBN 9780521065238. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Frishberg, Nancy (1975). "Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language". Language: 696–719. doi:10.2307/412894. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Hill, Joseph; Lillo-Martin, Diane; Wood, Sandra (2019). Sign Languages: Structures and Contexts. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-08916-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Keith, Allan (1977). "Classifiers". Language. 53: 285–311. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0043. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Liddell, Scott K (2000). The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 303–320. ISBN 1-4106-0497-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Liddell, Scott K (2003). Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511615054. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Liddell, Scott K (2003). "Sources of Meaning in ASL Classifier Predicates". Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 199–220. ISBN 0-8058-4269-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Morgan, Gary; Woll, Bencie (2003). "The Development of Reference Switching Encoded Through Body Classifiers in British Sign Language". Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 0-8058-4269-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Ortega, Gerardo (2017). "Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review". Frontiers in Psychology. 8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5539242. PMID 28824480. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  • Sandler, Wendy; Lillo-Martin, Diane (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521483957. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Schembri, Adam (2003). "Rethinking 'classifiers' in signed languages". Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0415653817. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Schembri, Adam; Jones, Caroline; Burnham, Denis (2005). "Comparing Action Gestures and Classifier Verbs of Motion: Evidence From Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and Nonsigners' Gestures Without Speech". The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 10 (3): 272–290. doi:10.1093/deafed/eni029. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Schick, Brenda (1990). "The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL". Theoretical issues: 358–374. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Slobin, Dan (2003). A Cognitive/Functional Perspective on the Acquisition of “Classifiers”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 271-296. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Supalla, Ted Roland (1982). Structure and Acquisition of Verbs of Motion and Location in American Sign Language. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Thompson, Robin L. (2011). "Iconicity in Language Processing and Acquisition: What Signed Languages Reveal: Iconicity in Sign Language". Language and Linguistics Compass. 5 (9): 603–616. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classifier_constructions_in_sign_languages&oldid=906865776"