Classifier constructions in sign languages: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:14, 18 September 2022

Latest revision as of 12:08, 14 March 2025

(20 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Morphological system}}

{{anchor|Classifier handshape}} <!-- The page [[Classifier handshapes]] was turned into a redirect in 2019 and looks for this anchor. If there is a section on classifier handshapes in the article, move this anchor to that section. -->

In '''[[Signsign language|sign languages]]s,''' the term '''classifier constructionconstructions''', (also known as '''classifier predicates'''), refers toare a [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] system that can expressexpressing events and states.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=76}} They use [[handshape]] '''[[Classifier (linguistics)|classifiers]]''' to represent movement, ___location, and shape. Classifiers[[Classifier (linguistics)|Classifier]]s differ from signs in their morphology, namely in that signs consist of a single [[morpheme]]. Signs are composed of three meaningless [[Phonology|phonological]] features: handshape, ___location, and movement. ClassifierClassifiers, on the other hand, consist of many morphemes. Specifically, the handshape, ___location, and movement are all meaningful on their own.{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|Wood|2019|p=49}} The handshape represents an entity and the hand's movement iconically[[Sign language#Iconicity|iconic]]ally represents the movement of that entity. The relative ___location of multiple entities can be represented iconically in two-handed constructions.

Classifiers share some limited similarities with the [[Gesture|gesturesgesture]]s of hearing non-signers. Those who do not know the sign language can often guess the meaning of these constructions. This is because they are often [[Sign language#Iconicity|iconic]] (non-arbitrary).{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=254}} It has also been found that many unrelated sign languages use similar handshapes for specific entities. Children master these constructions aroundby the age of 8eight or 9nine.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=194-195}} Two-handed classifier constructions have a [[Figure–ground (perception)|figure-ground]] relationship. Specifically, the first classifier represents the background whereas the second one represents the entity in focus. The right [[Cerebral hemisphere|hemisphere of the brain]] is involved in using classifiers. They may also be used creatively for story-tellingstorytelling and poetic purposes.

[[Nancy Frishberg|Frishberg]] coined the word "classifier" in this context in her 1975 paper on [[American Sign Language]]. Various connections have been made to [[Classifier (linguistics)|classifiers]] in spoken languages. Linguists have since then debated on how best to analyze these constructions. Analyses differ in how much they rely on morphology to explain them. Some have questioned their linguistic status, as well as the very use of the term "classifier".{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=253-254}} Not much is known yet about their [[syntax]] or [[phonology]].

== Description ==

<!-- introduction -->In classifier constructions, the [[handshape]] is the classifier representing an entity, such as a horse.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=74}} The signer can represent its movement and/or speed in an [[Sign language#Iconicity|iconic]] fashion. This means that the meaning of the movement can be guessed by its form.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=74}}{{Sfn|VadimKimmelman|RolandPfau|Enoch O.Aboh|2019}} A horse jumping over a fence may be represented by having the stationary hand be the fence and the moving hand be the horse.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=159}} However, not all combinations of handshape and movement are possible.{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=74}} Classifier constructions act as [[Verb|verbs]].{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=166}}

<!-- differences from lexical signs -->The handshape, movement and relative ___location in these constructions are meaningful on their own.{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|Wood|2019|p=49}} This is in contrast to two-handed lexical signs, in which the two hands do not contribute to the meaning of the sign on their own.{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=78-79}} The handshapes in a two-handed classifier construction are signed in a specific order if they represent an entity's ___location. The first sign usually represents the unmoving [[Figure–ground (perception)|ground]] (for example a surface). The second sign represents the smaller [[Figure–ground (perception)|figure]] in focus (for example a person walking).{{Sfn|Hill|Lillo-Martin|Wood|2019|p=51}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=86}}{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=164}} While the handshape is usually determined by the visual aspects of the entity in question,{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=22}} there are other factors. The way in which the [[Agent (grammar)|doer]] 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. Classifiers also often co-occur with verbs.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=164}} Not much is known yet about their [[syntax]]{{Sfn|Marschark|Spencer|2003|p=316}} or [[phonology]].{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=169}}

Line 45:

*'''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.

Whole entity classifiers and handling classifiers are the most established classifier types.{{Sfn|ZwisterloodZwitserlood|2012|p=162}} The former occur with [[Intransitive verb|intransitive verbs]], the latter occur with [[Transitive verb|transitive verbs]].{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=167}} Most linguists don't consider extension and surface classifiers to be true classifiers.{{Sfn|ZwisterloodZwitserlood|2012|p=162}} This is because they appear in a larger range of syntactic positions. They also cannot be referred back to [[Anaphora (linguistics)|anaphorically]] in the discourse, nor can they be combined with motion verbs.{{Sfn|ZwisterloodZwitserlood|2012|p=162}}

Certain types of classifiers and movements cannot be combined for grammatical reasons. For example, in ASL manner of motion cannot be combined with limb classifiers. 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}}

Line 56:

=== Lexicalization ===

{{seeSee article sectionalso|#Linguistic analyses}}

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}} These types of signs are referred to as frozen signs.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=169-170}} For example, the ASL sign FALL seems to have come from a classifier construction. This classifier construction consists of a V-shaped hand, which represents the legs, moving down. As it became 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}} The resulting sign must not be a simple sum of its combined parts, but can have a different meaning entirely.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=179}} They may serve as the [[Root (linguistics)|root morpheme]] that serves as the base for aspectual and derivational affixes. Classifiers cannot take these types of affixes.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=170}}

Line 62 ⟶ 63:

It wasn't until the 1960s that sign languages were being studied seriously.{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}} Initially, classifier constructions were not regarded as full linguistic systems.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=159}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=11}} This was due to their high degree of apparent variability and iconicity.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=11}} Consequently, early analyses described them in terms of visual imagery.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=158}} Linguists started focusing on proving that sign languages were real languages. They started paying less attention to their iconic properties and more to the way they are organized.{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}}

[[Nancy Frishberg|Frishberg]] was the first{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=252}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=9}} to use the term "classifier" in her 1975 paper on arbitrariness and iconicity in ASL to refer to the handshape unit used in classifier constructions.{{Sfn|Frishberg|1975}}

The start of the study of sign language classifier coincided with a renewed interest in [[Classifier (linguistics)|spoken language classifiers]].{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=160}} In 1977, [[Keith Allan (linguist)|Allan]] performed a survey of classifier systems in spoken languages. He compared classifier constructions to the "predicate classifiers" used in the [[Athabaskan languages|Athabaskan]] languages.{{Sfn|Keith|1977}} These are a family of oral [[Indigenous languages of the Americas|indigenous languages]] spoken throughout North America.{{Sfn|Fernald|Platero|p=3|2000}} Reasons for comparing them included standardizing terminology and proving that sign languages are similar to spoken languages.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=10-11}} Allan described predicate classifiers as separate verbal [[morpheme]]s that denote some salient aspect of the associated noun.{{Sfn|Keith|1977}} However, [[Adam Schembri|Schembri]] pointed out the "terminological confusion" surrounding classifiers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=15}} Allan's description and comparison came to draw criticism. Later analyses showed that these predicate classifiers did not constitute separate morphemes. Instead, they were better described as classificatory verbs stems rather than classifiers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=13-14}}{{Sfn|Emmorey|2008|p=88}}{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=175}}

In 1982, [[Ted Supalla|Supalla]] showed that classifier constructions were part of a complex [[Morphology (linguistics)|morphological]] system in ASL.{{Sfn|Supalla|1982}}{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=161; 165}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=11}} He split the classifier handshapes into two main categories: semantic classifiers (also called "entity classifiers") and size and shape specifiers (SASSes).{{Sfn|Sandler|Lillo-Martin|2006|p=77}} SASS categories use handshapes to describe the visual properties of an entity. Entity classifiers are less iconic. they refer 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 would be the third type of classifier to be described. This classifier imitates the hand holding or handling an instrument.{{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}} Linguist adopted and modified Supalla's morphological analysis for other sign languages.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=161}}

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 {{harvp|Liddell|2000}}, called the linguistic status of classifier constructions into question, especially the ___location and movement.{{Sfn|Crasborn|p=68|2006}} There were two reasons for doing so. First, the imitative gestures of non-signers are similar to classifiers.{{Sfn|Brentari|Fenlon|p=|Cormier|2018}} Second, very many types of movement and locations can be used in these constructions. [[Scott Liddell|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 and colleagues 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, Schembri and colleagues argue that classifier constructions are still grammatically restrained by various factors. For example, they are more abstract and categorical than the gestural forms made by non-signers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=26}} It is now generally accepted that classifiers have both linguistic and gestural properties.{{Sfn|Cormier|Schembri|Woll|2010|p=2664-2665}}

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 classifiers, 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|Iroquoian]] language:{{Sfn|Grinevald|2000|p=67}}

Line 77 ⟶ 78:

|‘I have a car.’}}

The classifier for the word vehicle in Cayuga, ''{{not a typo|-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}} It is now accepted that classifiers in spoken and signed languages are similar, contrary to what was previously believed.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=180}} They both track references grammatically, can form new words and may emphasize a salient aspect of an entity.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=180}} The main difference is that sign language only have verbal classifiers.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=180}} The classifiers systems in spoken languages are more diverse in function and distribution.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=175-176}}

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}}

Line 84 ⟶ 85:

<!-- Introduction and representational analyses -->There is no consensus on how to analyze classifier constructions.{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=254}} Linguistic analyses can be divided into three major categories: representational, morphological, and lexical. Representational analyses were the first attempt at describing classifiers.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=159}} This analysis views them as manual representations of movements in the world. Because classifier constructions are highly [[Iconicity|iconic]], representational analyses argue that this form-meaning connection should be the basis for linguistic analysis. This was argued because finite sets of morphemes or parameters cannot account for all potentially meaningful classifier constructions.{{Sfn|DeMatteo|1977}}{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=256-257}} This view has been criticized because it predicts [[ungrammatical|impossible constructions]]. For example, in ASL, a walking classifier handshape cannot be used to represent the movement of an animal in the animal [[classifier (linguistics)|noun class]], even though it is an iconic representation of the event.{{Sfn|Brentari|2010|p=258-259}}{{Clarify|reason=what is a noun class?|date=August 2019}}

<!-- lexical analyses -->Lexical analyses view classifiers as [[lexicalization|partially -lexicalized words]].{{Sfn|Liddell|2003a}}

<!-- morphological analyses -->MorphologicalA analysesmorphological analysis viewviews classifiers as a series of morphemes.,{{Sfn|Benedicto|Brentari|2004|p=}}{{Sfn|Supalla|1982}} Currently,and this is currently the predominant school of thought.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=159; 165}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=18}} In this analyses, classifier verbs are combinations of verbal roots with numerous affixes.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=165}} If the handshape is taken to consist of several morphemes, it is not clear how they should be segmented or analyzed.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=159}}{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=18-20}} 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}} The morphological analysis has been criticized for its complexity.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=165}} Liddell found that to analyze a classifier construction in ASL where one person walks to another would require anywhere between 14 and 28 morphemes.{{Sfn|Liddell|2003b|p=205-206}} Other linguists, however, consider the handshape to consist of one, solitary morpheme.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=19}} In 2003, Schembri stated that there is no convincing evidence that all handshapes are multi-morphemic. This was based on grammaticality judgments from native signers.{{Sfn|Schembri|2003|p=19}}

<!-- what is the root in morphological analyses -->Morphological analyses differ in what aspect of the construction they consider the root. Supalla argued that the morpheme which expresses motion or ___location is the verbal root to which the handshape morpheme is affixed.{{Sfn|Supalla|1982|p=}} Engberg-Pedersen disagreed with Supalla, arguing that the choice of handshape can fundamentally change how the movement is interpreted. Therefore, she claims the movement should 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}}{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=166}} Classifiers are [[Affix|affixes]], meaning that they cannot occur alone and must be [[Bound and free morphemes|bound]].{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=168}} Classifiers on their own are not specified for place of articulation or movement. This might explain why they are bound: this missing information is filled in by the root.{{Sfn|Zwitserlood|2012|p=168}}

Line 115 ⟶ 116:

== 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 |pages=53–84 |chapter=Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages}}

* {{Cite book|title=American sign language : a teacher's resource text on grammar and culture|last1=Baker-Shenk|first1=Charlotte Lee|last2=Cokely|first2=Dennis|date=1981|publisher=Clerc Books, Gallaudet University Press|others=Cokely, Dennis.|isbn=093032384X|___location=Washington, D.C.|oclc=24120797}}

Line 125 ⟶ 124:

* {{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|isbn=9780199384655 }}

* {{Cite journal|last1=Brozdowski|first1=Chris|last2=Secora|first2=Kristen|last3=Emmorey|first3=Karen|date=2019-03-11|title=Assessing the Comprehension of Spatial Perspectives in ASL Classifier Constructions|journal=The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education|volume=24|issue=3|pages=214–222|doi=10.1093/deafed/enz005|pmid=30856254|issn=1081-4159|pmc=6546157}}

*{{cite book |last1=Carlo|first1=Geraci|title=Structuring the argument. Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure |date=2014 |pages=45–60|publisher=John Benjamins Publishing Company |isbn=978-90-272-0827-9}}

*{{Cite journal|last1=Cormier|first1=Kearsy|last2=Schembri|first2=Adam|last3=Woll|first3=Bencie|date=2010|title=Diversity across sign languages and spoken languages: Implications for language universals|journal=Lingua|volume=120|issue=12|pages=2664–2667|doi=10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.016}}

* {{Cite journal|last=Crasborn|first=Onno A|date=2006|title=A linguistic analysis of the use of the two hands in sign language poetry|journal=Linguistics in the Netherlands|volume=23|issue=1|pages=65–77|doi=10.1075/avt.23.09cra|doi-access=free}}

Line 138 ⟶ 137:

* {{Cite book|title=Sign Languages: Structures and Contexts|last1=Hill|first1=Joseph|last2=Lillo-Martin|first2=Diane|last3=Wood|first3=Sandra|publisher=Routledge|year=2019|isbn=978-1-138-08916-7}}

* {{cite journal |last1=Keith |first1=Allan |title=Classifiers |journal=Language |date=1977 |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=285–311 |doi=10.1353/lan.1977.0043|s2cid=210072166 }}

* {{Cite journal|last1=Kimmelman|first1=Vadim|last2=Pfau|first2=Roland|last3=Aboh|first3=Enoch O.|date=April 2019|title=Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language|journal=Natural Language & Linguistic Theory|volume=38|issue=2|pages=539–579|doi=10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9|hdl=1956/19700|doi-access=free|hdl-access=free}}

* {{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}}

*{{cite book |last1=Liddell |first1=Scott K |title=Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language |date=20032003a |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9780511615054}}

* {{cite book |last1=Liddell |first1=Scott K|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages |date=20032003b |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |isbn=0-8058-4269-1 |pages=199–220 |chapter=Sources of Meaning in ASL Classifier Predicates}}

*{{Cite book|title=Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education|last1=Marschark|first1=Marc|last2=Spencer|first2=Patricia Elizabeth|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2003|isbn=0195149971|___location=Oxford|oclc=50143669}}

* {{Cite journal|last1=Marshall|first1=Chloë R.|last2=Morgan|first2=Gary|date=2015|title=From Gesture to Sign Language: Conventionalization of Classifier Constructions by Adult Hearing Learners of British Sign Language|url=http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/6413/8/from%20gesture%20to%20sign%20language.pdf|journal=Topics in Cognitive Science|volume=7|issue=1|pages=61–80|doi=10.1111/tops.12118|pmid=25329326|issn=1756-8765|doi-access=free}}

* {{Cite book|title=Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages|last1=Morgan|first1=Gary|last2=Woll|first2=Bencie|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum|year=2003|isbn=0-8058-4269-1|chapter=The Development of Reference Switching Encoded Through Body Classifiers in British Sign Language}}

* {{Cite journal|last1=Ortega|first1=Gerardo|last2=Schiefner|first2=Annika|last3=Özyürek|first3=Aslı|date=2019|title=Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-meaning mappings at first exposure to signs|journal=Cognition|volume=191|pages=103996|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.008|pmid=31238248|hdl=21.11116/0000-0003-D9C9-6|s2cid=195247869|url=http://pure-oai.bham.ac.uk/ws/files/68302182/Preprint_Ortega_Schiefner_Ozyurek_UoB.pdf |hdl-access=free}}

* {{Cite journal|last=Ortega|first=Gerardo|date=2017|title=Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=8|pages=1280|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280|issn=1664-1078|pmc=5539242|pmid=28824480|doi-access=free}}

* {{Cite book|title=Sign Language and Linguistic Universals|last1=Sandler|first1=Wendy|last2=Lillo-Martin|first2=Diane|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0521483957}}

Line 156 ⟶ 155:

* {{Cite journal|last=Thompson|first=Robin L.|date=2011|title=Iconicity in Language Processing and Acquisition: What Signed Languages Reveal: Iconicity in Sign Language|journal=Language and Linguistics Compass|volume=5|issue=9|pages=603–616|doi=10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x}}

*{{Cite book|title=Sign language: an international handbook|last=Zwitserlood|first=Inge|publisher=De gruyter mouton|year=2012|isbn=9783110261325|___location=Berlin|chapter=Classifiers|oclc=812574063}}

{{refend}}

Line 161:

[[Category:Sign language]]

[[Category:Linguistic morphology]]

[[Category:Parts of speech]]