Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 251–274

Nominal referential values of semantic classifiers and role shift in signed narratives

| CNRS/Paris 8 and ICREA/Universitat Pompeu Fabra
| CNRS/Paris 8 and ICREA/Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Bringing together the areas of dynamic semantics and signed discourse, this article focuses on the dynamic potential of referring expressions, such as semantic and limb classifiers, and role shift constructions. On the basis of the Catalan Sign Language version of the Aesop’s fables, a qualitative analysis is presented, which focuses on the interaction between referring expressions and the accessibility scale. While the incorporation of semantic and limb classifiers constructions into the accessibility hierarchy leads to a more fine-grained analysis, role shift also reveals itself as an essential mechanism to associate the classifier handshape to the corresponding discourse referent. Dynamic operations are taken into account with the main aim of offering a novel proposal on discourse accessibility structure in signed narrative discourse.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Dynamic semantics and salience
    • 2.2Previous work on reference tracking in sign languages
    • 2.3A more complex account of salience
  • 3.Referring expressions in signed narratives
    • 3.1Semantic classifiers
    • 3.2Double function of classifiers
    • 3.3Coarticulation of role shift and semantic classifiers
  • 4.Accessibility in signed anaphoric chains
    • 4.1Licensing the identity equation and associative anaphora
    • 4.2Accessibility and semantic relations
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.11bar
References
Almor, A.
1999 Constraints and mechanisms in theories of anaphor processing. In Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, M. Crocker, M. Pickering & C. Clifton (eds), 341–354. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
1990 Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E.
2010 How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 187–203.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D.
2004 Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4): 743–810.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, J., Su, S. & Tai, J. H.-Y.
2005 Classifier predicates reanalysed, with special reference to Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics 6(2): 247–278.Google Scholar
Charolles, M.
1999 Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 311–326.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, C.
2000 La Langue des Signes Française (LSF): Les voies de lʼiconicité. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Earis, H. & Cormier, K.
2013 Point of view in British Sign Language and spoken English narrative discourse: The example of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare’. Language and Cognition 5(4): 314–343.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, E. & Pedersen, A.
1985 Proforms in Danish Sign Language. Their use in figurative meaning. In SLR’83 Proceedings of the III International Symposium on Sign Language Research, W. Stokoe & V. Volterra (eds), 202–210. Silver Spring MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, L.
1975 Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51(4): 940–961.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcia, B. & Sallandre M.-A.
2013 Reference resolution in French Sign Language (LSF). In Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference [Syntax and Semantics 39], P. Cabredo Hofherr & A. Zribi-Hertz (eds), 316–364. Leiden: Brill.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glück, S. & Pfau, R.
1998 On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In ConSole VI Proceedings, T. Cambier-Langeveld, A. Lipták & M. Redford (eds), 59–74. Leiden: Sole.Google Scholar
Grosz, B., Joshi, A. & Weinstein, S.
1995 Centering: A framework for modelling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 2(21): 203–225.Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.
1993 Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.
2007 Why can German Sign Language (DGS) do without a passive construction? Ways of marking semantic roles in DGS. Dissertation abstract. Sign Language & Linguistics 10(2): 213–222.Google Scholar
Heim, I.
1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Herrero, Á.
2004 Una aproximación morfológica a las construcciones clasificatorias en la lengua de signos española. ELUA Estudios de lingüística 18: 151–186.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, K.
2007 Accessibility and definite noun phrases. In Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (eds), 123–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, T., O’Dea, B. & Shaffer, B.
2001 The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 1(3): 281–310.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. & Reyle, U.
1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Model Theoretic semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kegl, J.
1986 Clitics in American Sign Language. In The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics [Syntax and Semantics 19], H. Borer (ed), 285–309. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1990 Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the American Sign Language lexicon. In Sign Language Research. Theoretical Issues, C. Lucas (ed), 149–176. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. & Wilbur, R.
1976 When does structure stop and style begin? Syntax, morphology and phonology vs. stylistic variation in American Sign Language. Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society 12: 376–396.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. A. & Prozorova, E. V.
2007 Referential choice in signed and spoken languages. In Proceedings of 6th DAARC, A. Branco, T. McEnery, R. Mitkov & F. Silva (eds), 41–46. Porto: Centro de Linguistica da Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar
Morgan, G.
2006 The development of narrative skills in British Sign Language. In Advances in Sign Language Development in Deaf Children, B. Schick, M. Marschark & P. Spencer (eds), 314–343. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. & Woll, B.
2003 The development of reference switching enconded through body classifiers in British Sign Language. In Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed), 297–310. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nouwen, R.
2003 Plural Pronominal Anaphora in Context: Dynamic Aspects of Quantification. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Perniss, P.
2007 Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). PhD dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Prince, E.
1981 Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed), 223–256. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, D.
2007 Why does constructed action seem obligatory? An analysis of classifiers and the lack of articulator-referent correspondence. Sign Language Studies 7(4): 458–506.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeed, J. & Leeson, L.
1999 Detransitivisation in Irish Sign Language. Paper presented at the European Science Foundation Intersign Meeting on Morphosyntax. Siena, Italy, March.Google Scholar
Schwarz, F.
2013 Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(10): 534–559.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Supalla, T.
1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Noun Classification and Categorization [Typological Studies in Language 7], C. Craig (ed), 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swabey, L.
2002 The Cognitive Status, Form and Distribution of Referring Expressions in ASL and English Narratives. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R.
1987 American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. San Diego CA: College-Hill.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I.
2003 Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
2012 Classifiers. In Sign Language. An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 158–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. & van Gijn, I.
2006 Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Arguments and Agreement, P. Ackema, P. Brandt, M. Schoorlemmer & F. Weermann (eds), 195–229. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer
2023. Chapter 8. Studying microdiachronic change with the Catalan Sign Language corpus. In Advances in Sign Language Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 108], ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Ferrara, Lindsay, Benjamin Anible, Gabrielle Hodge, Tommi Jantunen, Lorraine Leeson, Johanna Mesch & Anna-Lena Nilsson
2023. A cross-linguistic comparison of reference across five signed languages. Linguistic Typology 27:3 ► pp. 591 ff. DOI logo
MANTOVAN, LARA, CARLO GERACI & ANNA CARDINALETTI
2019. On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Journal of Linguistics 55:4 ► pp. 795 ff. DOI logo
Steinbach, Markus
2023. Angry lions and scared neighbors: Complex demonstrations in sign language role shift at the sign-gesture interface. Linguistics 61:2 ► pp. 391 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.