Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view

IF 1.9 1区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Language Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1353/lan.2024.a929735
Kadir Gökgöz, Luke James Adamson, Amalia Arvaniti, A. Katsika, Na Hu, Canaan Breiss, Morris Swadesh, Stephen R. Anderson, E. Traugott, Lauren Gawne, John Beavers, Shelome Gooden, Samantha Jackson, Derek Denis, Allison Taylor-Adams, Kaylynn Gunter, Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Amanda Bohnert, Emily Hanink, Kelly H. Berkson, S. Chelliah, S. Par, Kilu von Prince
{"title":"Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view","authors":"Kadir Gökgöz, Luke James Adamson, Amalia Arvaniti, A. Katsika, Na Hu, Canaan Breiss, Morris Swadesh, Stephen R. Anderson, E. Traugott, Lauren Gawne, John Beavers, Shelome Gooden, Samantha Jackson, Derek Denis, Allison Taylor-Adams, Kaylynn Gunter, Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Amanda Bohnert, Emily Hanink, Kelly H. Berkson, S. Chelliah, S. Par, Kilu von Prince","doi":"10.1353/lan.2024.a929735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Whether spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes are comparable enough to be treated similarly is a subject of debate in the literature. In this article, I first show that both spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes cross-reference the internal argument in intransitive and transitive clauses. Despite differences in the modality of expression (visual-gestural vs. auditory-oral), verbal classifiers end up accomplishing this same kind of work in the grammar, which falls under absolutive alignment. From a morphosyntactic point of view, however, there is more to the story, as data from body-part classifiers reveal. I show that Turkish Sign Language (TİD) is similar to Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee with regard to classifiers cross-referencing the external or internal argument’s body part. While some of this falls outside of absolutive alignment because cross-reference is to the external argument, I show that the syntactic distributions of clauses with body-part classifiers in both modalities can be accounted for with a few modifications to recent morphosyntactic proposals originally offered for sign languages. This supports the conclusion that verbal classifiers are comparable across modalities. Along the way, I refine Benedicto and Brentari’s (2004) account and propose that there are building blocks (selected fingers and hand-parts) in the morphophonology of TİD that combine to yield the range of classifiers that researchers hitherto have tended to describe with holistic labels. Namely, all classifier types in sign languages (whole entity, handling, and body part) employ selected fingers that cross-reference the internal argument in some way, similarly to how many spoken language verbal classifiers cross-reference internal arguments. Furthermore, handling and body-part classifiers make use of hand-parts that can cross-reference the body part of the external argument. Similarities between the spoken languages Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee and the sign language TİD in cross-referencing the body part of an argument in syntax become clear, and the morphophonological patterns of hand-parts also reveal handling and body-part classifiers in sign languages to be more similar than previously thought.","PeriodicalId":17956,"journal":{"name":"Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2024.a929735","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Whether spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes are comparable enough to be treated similarly is a subject of debate in the literature. In this article, I first show that both spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes cross-reference the internal argument in intransitive and transitive clauses. Despite differences in the modality of expression (visual-gestural vs. auditory-oral), verbal classifiers end up accomplishing this same kind of work in the grammar, which falls under absolutive alignment. From a morphosyntactic point of view, however, there is more to the story, as data from body-part classifiers reveal. I show that Turkish Sign Language (TİD) is similar to Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee with regard to classifiers cross-referencing the external or internal argument’s body part. While some of this falls outside of absolutive alignment because cross-reference is to the external argument, I show that the syntactic distributions of clauses with body-part classifiers in both modalities can be accounted for with a few modifications to recent morphosyntactic proposals originally offered for sign languages. This supports the conclusion that verbal classifiers are comparable across modalities. Along the way, I refine Benedicto and Brentari’s (2004) account and propose that there are building blocks (selected fingers and hand-parts) in the morphophonology of TİD that combine to yield the range of classifiers that researchers hitherto have tended to describe with holistic labels. Namely, all classifier types in sign languages (whole entity, handling, and body part) employ selected fingers that cross-reference the internal argument in some way, similarly to how many spoken language verbal classifiers cross-reference internal arguments. Furthermore, handling and body-part classifiers make use of hand-parts that can cross-reference the body part of the external argument. Similarities between the spoken languages Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee and the sign language TİD in cross-referencing the body part of an argument in syntax become clear, and the morphophonological patterns of hand-parts also reveal handling and body-part classifiers in sign languages to be more similar than previously thought.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从跨语言和跨模态的角度看动词分类器
摘要:口语言语分类器和手语分类器的手形是否具有足够的可比性,是否可以进行类似处理,是文献中争论的一个话题。在本文中,笔者首先证明了口语言语分类器和手语分类器的手形都能交叉引用不及物动词和及物动词从句中的内部论点。尽管表达方式不同(视觉-手势与听觉-口语),但言语分类器最终在语法中完成了同样的工作,属于绝对对齐。然而,从形态句法的角度来看,正如来自身体部位分类器的数据所揭示的那样,这其中还有更多的故事。我的研究表明,土耳其手语(TİD)与马纳姆语(Manam)、迪格诺语(Diegueño)和切罗基语(Cherokee)在分类器交叉引用外部或内部论据的身体部位方面相似。虽然由于交叉参照的是外部论据,其中一些不属于绝对对齐的范畴,但我证明,只要对最近最初为手势语提出的形态句法建议稍加修改,就可以解释这两种模态中带有身体部位分类词的分句的句法分布。这支持了言语分类词在不同模态中具有可比性的结论。在此过程中,我完善了贝内迪克托和布伦塔瑞(Benedicto and Brentari,2004 年)的论述,并提出在 TİD的形态音素学中存在一些构件(选定的手指和手部),这些构件组合在一起,产生了迄今为止研究人员倾向于用整体标签来描述的分类器的范围。也就是说,手语中的所有分类器类型(整体、处理和身体部分)都使用了选定的手指,这些手指以某种方式交叉引用内部论据,这与许多口语动词分类器交叉引用内部论据的情况类似。此外,处理和身体部位分类器使用的手部可以交叉引用外部参数的身体部位。口语马纳姆语(Manam)、迪格诺语(Diegueño)和切罗基语(Cherokee)与手语 TİD 在句法中交叉引用论据的身体部分方面的相似性变得很明显,手部的形态学模式也揭示了手语中的处理和身体部分分类器比以前认为的更加相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Language
Language Multiple-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Language, the official journal for the Linguistic Society of America, is published quarterly and contains articles, short reports, book reviews and book notices on all aspects of linguistics, focussing on the area of theoretical linguistics. Edited by Greg Carlson, Language serves a readership of over 5,000 and has been the primary literary vehicle for the Society since 1924.
期刊最新文献
Irrealis expressions and modality: A response to von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka Discourse-pragmatic variation and change: Theory, innovations, contact ed. by Elizabeth Peterson, Turo Hiltunen and Joseph Kern (review) Variability, overlap, and cue trading in intonation Gender assignment is local: On the relation between grammatical gender and inalienable possession The phonemic principle
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1