Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot. |
→History: Gloss |
||
Line 58:
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}}
{{interlinear|indent=3
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}} 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}}
== Linguistic 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}}
| |||