Cover not available

Article In: Sign Language & Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Revisiting the boundary between linguistic and gestural

Classifier predicates and beyond

 | Leiden University
ORCiD logo with link | SFL (CNRS & Paris 8 University)
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Despite extensive research on the topic, the divide between what is gestural and what is properly linguistic in the case of classifier predicates is still a matter of controversy. In this paper, we adopt the analysis according to which classifier predicates involve the co-utterance of a fully linguistic unit and of a demonstrative gesture (Zucchi, Sandro, Carlo Cecchetto, & Carlo Geraci. 2012. Event descriptions and classifier predicates in sign languages. Presentation at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST 1), Venice, Italy. [URL]; Davidson, Kathryn. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(6), 477–520. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). In light of this debate, we extensively discuss the source of argument structure in classifier predicates, more specifically the hypothesis stemming from work by 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, according to which different classifier types determine the unergative, unaccusative, or transitive nature of the classifier. After discussing some new counterexamples to a rigid mapping between classifier types and argument structure, we propose a pragmatic reinterpretation of this regular, but not exceptionless, mapping.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some background on classifier predicates
  • 3.Classifier predicates: Linguistic or gestural?
  • 4.The demonstration analysis of classifier predicates
  • 5.The debate about the source of argument structure in classifier predicates
  • 6.A pragmatic account of argument structure in classifier predicates
  • 7.Summary
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (35)
References
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only: Structuring sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2). 278–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Condizioni di verità, sottospecificazione e discorso nelle lingue dei segni. In Rocco Pititto & Simona Venezia (eds.), Tradurre e comprendere. Pluralità dei linguaggi e delle culture, 353–385. Genzano di Roma: Aracne Editrice.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidson, Kathryn. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(6), 477–520. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Lint, Vanja. 2018. NGT classifier constructions: An inventory of arguments. Sign Language & Linguistics 21(1). 3–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Edward, Mary & Pamela Perniss. 2019. Encoding spatial information in two sign languages: A comparison of Ghanaian (GSL) and Adamorobe (AdaSL) Sign Languages. Paper presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR 13), Hamburg, Germany. [URL]
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen & Melissa Herzig. 2003. Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 221–246. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fornasiero, Elena. 2020. Morphology: Classifiers. In Chiara Branchini & Lara Mantovan (eds.), A grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS) (SIGN-HUB Sign Language Grammar Series). Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2009. Epenthesis in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1). 3–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau. 1998. On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In Tina Cambier-Langeveld, Aniko Lipták & Michael Redford (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE VI1, 59–74. Leiden: SOLE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2024. Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view. Language 100(2). 179–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1967. Logic and conversation. In Paul Grice (ed.), Studies in the way of words, 41–58. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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(7). 1258–1284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Samuel J. Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 321, 73–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, 481–563. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1977)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Vanja de Lint, Connie de Vos, Marloes Oomen, Roland Pfau, Lianne Vink & Enoch O. Aboh. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates: Canonical and non-canonical mappings in four sign languages. Open Linguistics 5(1), 332–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh. 2020. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(2), 539–579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 299–319. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1988. Agent incorporation in Indonesian. Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 111–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
Öztürk, Balkız. 2009. Incorporating agents. Lingua 119(2). 334–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sevgi, Hande. 2024. One root to build them all: Roots in sign language classifiers. In Robert Autry, Gabriela de la Cruz, Luis A. Irizarry Figueroa, Kristina Mihajlovic, Tianyi Ni, Ryan Smith & Heidi Harley (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 393–400. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
Tang, Gladys, Jia Li & Jia He. 2021. Classifiers: Theoretical perspectives. In Josep Quer, Roland Pfau & Annika Herrmann (eds.), The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, 139–173. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Tiel, Bob, Emiel van Miltenburg, Natalia Zevakhina & Bart Geurts. 2016. Scalar diversity. Journal of Semantics 33(1). 137–175. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
Zucchi, Sandro. 2012. Formal semantics of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(11). 719–734. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro, Carlo Cecchetto, & Carlo Geraci. 2012. Event descriptions and classifier predicates in sign languages. Presentation at Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory (FEAST 1), Venice, Italy. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue