Abstract
We analyze argument structure of whole-entity and handling classifier predicates in four sign languages (Russian Sign Language, Sign Language of the Netherlands, German Sign Language, and Kata Kolok) using parallel datasets (retellings of the Canary Row cartoons). We find that all four languages display a systematic, or canonical, mapping between classifier type and argument structure, as previously established for several sign languages: whole-entity classifier predicates are mostly used intransitively, while handling classifier predicates are used transitively. However, our data sets also reveal several non-canonical mappings which we address in turn. First, it appears that whole-entity classifier predicates can be used unergatively, rather than unaccusatively, contrary to expectations. Second, our data contain some transitive uses of whole-entity classifier predicates. Finally, we find that handling classifier predicates can express various complex event structures. We discuss what these findings imply for existing theories of classifier predicates in sign languages.
References
Acartürk, Cengiz. 2005. Gradient Characteristics of the Unaccusative/Unergative Distinction in Turkish: an Experimental Investigation. Ankara: The Middle East Technical University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810.10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2Search in Google Scholar
Bickford, J. Albert. 2005. The Signed Languages of Eastern Europe. SIL International.Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds.), Functional Projections, 19-47. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Search in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Deriving passives without theta-grids. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari & Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 60-99. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & Marie Coppola. 2013. What sign language creation teaches us about language: Sign Language Creation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(2). 201–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.121210.1002/wcs.1212Search in Google Scholar
Burkova, Svetlana. 2015. Russian Sign Language Corpus. http://rsl.nstu.ru/ (1 April, 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Casey, Shannon & Karen Emmorey. 2009. Co-speech gesture in bimodal bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 290–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096080191618810.1080/01690960801916188Search in Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Corpus NGT. An open access digital corpus of movies with annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. http://www.ru.nl/corpusngtuk/introduction/welcome/.Search in Google Scholar
De Lint, Vanja. 2010. Argument Structure in Classifier Constructions in American Sign Language (ASL): an experimental approach. Utrecht: Utrecht University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
De Lint, Vanja. 2018. NGT classifier constructions: an inventory of arguments. Sign Language & Linguistics 21(1). 3–39.10.1075/sll.00011.linSearch in Google Scholar
De Vos, Connie. 2012. Sign-spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language of Bali Inscribes Its Signing space. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PhD dissertation.10.1075/sll.16.2.08vosSearch in Google Scholar
De Vos, Connie. 2016. Sampling shared sign languages. Sign Language Studies 16(2). 204–226. doi:10.1353/sls.2016.0002.10.1353/sls.2016.0002Search in Google Scholar
De Vos, Connie & Roland Pfau. 2015. Sign language typology: The contribution of rural sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 265–288. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124958.10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124958Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument structure. Language 67. 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410607447Search in Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay. 2012. The Grammar of Depiction: Exploring Gesture and Language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Freleng, Friz. 1950. Canary Row. Animated Cartoon. Time Warner, New York.Search in Google Scholar
Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau. 1998. On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In Tina Cambier-Langeveld, Anikó Lipták & Michael Redford (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 59–74. Leiden: SOLE.Search in Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117. 1258–1284.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014Search in Google Scholar
Hanke, Thomas, Sung-Eun Hong, Susanne König, Gabriele Langer, Rie Nishio & Christian Rathmann. 2010. Designing elicitation stimuli and tasks for the DGS Corpus Project. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference (TISLR 10), Sept 30–Oct 2, 2010, Purdue University, Indiana, USA.Search in Google Scholar
Hinnant, John T. 2000. Adaptation to deafness in a Balinese community. In Charles I. Berlin & Bronya J. B. Keats (eds.), Genetics and Hearing Loss, 111–123. San Diego : Singular Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185.10.1075/sll.2.2.03johSearch in Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL Lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, 149–175. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (online first, 3 April 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9).Search in Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2018. Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language (RSL). Sign Language & Linguistics 21(2). 204–231.10.1075/sll.00018.kimSearch in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479Search in Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2007. The argument structure of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. In Amy Rose (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting on Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Search in Google Scholar
Marsaja, I Gede. 2008. Desa Kolok: A Deaf Village and Its Sign Language in Bali, Indonesia. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pavlič, Matic. 2016. The Word Order Parameter in Slovenian Sign Language: Transitive, Ditransitive, Classifier and Locative constructions. Venice: Università Ca’Foscari PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. University of California, Berkeley.10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117. 1315–1338.10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.013Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 412–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110261325.412Search in Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela & Aslı Özyürek. 2008. Representations of action, motion, and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) Sign Language narratives. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR, 353–378. Hamburg: Signum.Search in Google Scholar
Rietveld-van Wingerden, Marjoke. 2003. Educating the deaf in The Netherlands: a methodological controversy in historical perspective. History of Education 32(4). 401–416. doi:10.1080/00467600304146.10.1080/00467600304146Search in Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In David Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 38–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139163910Search in Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam C. 2003. Rethinking “classifiers” in sign languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–890.10.2307/417202Search in Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.7.13supSearch in Google Scholar
Van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations: A Case Study of Dutch and Its Acquisition. Tilburg: Tilburg University PhD dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260.10.2307/414886Search in Google Scholar
Vink, Lianne. 2017. Classifiers en Argumentstructuur in Kata Kolok. Een Corpus-gebaseerd Onderzoek. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, BA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Wheatley, Mark & Annika Pabsch. 2012. Sign Language Legislation in the European Union. 2nd ed. Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Search in Google Scholar
Winata, Sunaryana, I. Nyoman Arhya, Sukarti Moeljopawiro, John T. Hinnant, Yong Liang, Thomas B. Friedman & James H. Asher. 1995. Congenital non-syndromal autosomal recessive deafness in Bengkala, an isolated Balinese village. Journal of Medical Genetics 32. 336–343.Search in Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. ‘Classificatory’ constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: Grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Emmorey, Karen (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2008. Roots, leaves and branches – The typology of sign languages. In Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), Sign Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and Future, 671–695. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul.Search in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Search in Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2012. Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign Language. An International Handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110261325.158Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Vadim Kimmelman et al., published by De Gruyter Open
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License.
