Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2018) ► pp.3–39

NGT classifier constructions

An inventory of arguments

 | University of Amsterdam
This paper seeks to find empirical evidence for categorical associations between classifier types and argument structure in Sign Language of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Gebarentaal – NGT), based on an influential proposal by Benedicto & Brentari (2004). In the light of (sign) language typology and possible modality effects, it is of interest to investigate whether the morpho-phonological similarities of sign language classifier predicates are associated with the same syntactic-semantic properties cross-linguistically. This paper offers three additions to the quest: data from another sign language, an empirical approach, and a more fine-grained distinction of verb types. In an elicitation study, signers produced classifier descriptions of verbs with different argument structures. Their responses were analyzed for phonological handshape and classifier type. Based on the results, I conclude that (i) NGT classifier constructions show categorical associations between argument structure and classifier type, that (ii) specifically, NGT handling and whole entity classifier predicates may take part in a transitive-intransitive alternation, and that (iii) with respect to NGT classifier constructions, we need to distinguish manner verbs from causative verbs.
Keywords: argument structure, classifiers, elicitation, argument structure alternations, Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Classifiers and argument structure
    • 2.1Sign language classifiers
    • 2.2Categorical associations with argument structure
    • 2.3Manner verbs
    • 2.4Agents
    • 2.5Research question and hypothesis
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Elicitation material
      • 3.2.1Verb type 1
      • 3.2.2Verb type 2
      • 3.2.3Verb type 3
    • 3.3Set-up
    • 3.4Analysis/coding
    • 3.5Predictions
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Quantitative results
    • 4.2Qualitative results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Linking the results to the predictions
    • 5.2Patterns of variation
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00011.lin
References (65)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003. Classifiers in spoken and in signed languages: how to know more. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 87–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2004. Morphological universals and the sign language type. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 19–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 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
Benedicto, Elena, Sandra Cvejanov & Josep Quer. 2007. Valency in classifier predicates: A syntactic analysis. Lingua 1171. 1202–1215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bogaerde, Beppie van den. 2000. Input and interaction in deaf families. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa & Penelope Brown. 2008. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cogill-Koez, Dorothea. 2000. Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representations? Sign Language & Linguistics 3(2). 153–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernhard. 1993. Argument structure. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Volume 11, 905–914. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Het Corpus NGT. Een digitaal open access corpus van filmpjes en annotaties van de Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University. URL: [URL].
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument structure. Language 671. 547–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition and the brain: insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Gertner, Yael, Cynthia Fisher & Julie Eisengart. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17(8). 684–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau. 1997. Eine Klasse für sich: Klassifizierende Verben in Deutscher Gebärdensprache [Classificatory verbs in German Sign Language]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 16(1/2). 181–208.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language. What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 1996. A typology of classifiers: Issues and perspectives. Paper presented at the Third Australian Linguistics Institute, Canberra.
. 2000. Classifiers. In Gunter Senft (ed.), Systems of nominal classification, 50–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie Wilbur & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: a reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 1171. 1258–1284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & Samuel J. Keyser. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds.), Theories of everything: in honor of Edward Keenan, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 171, 109–130. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar
Hoiting, Nini. 2009. The myth of simplicity: sign language acquisition by deaf toddlers. Groningen: RUG PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the mind hears: a history of the deaf. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Sources of meaning in ASL classifier predicates. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 199–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lint, Vanja de. 2010. Argument structure in classifier constructions in American Sign Language (ASL): an experimental approach. Utrecht: Utrecht University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Marelj, Marijana. 2004. Middles and argument structure across languages. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2007. The argument structure of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. In Amy R. Deal (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting on Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas, 141–159. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 2002. Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Language and modality. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 574–601. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1999. Verb classifiers and noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. Yearbook of Morphology 1999. 299–319.Google Scholar
Naigles, Letitia R. 1990. Children use syntax to use verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 17(2). 357–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition 581. 221–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Developmental changes in the use of structure in verb learning. Advances in Infancy Research 121. 298–317.Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. & Richard P. Meier. 1985. The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Dan I. Slobin (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland. (Original version: 1983. San Diego, CA: University of California San Diego PhD dissertation).Google Scholar
. 2011. From gesture to new sign language. Presentation given at the MPI Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Pavlič, Matic. 2016. The word order parameter in Slovenian sign language : transitive, ditransitive, classifier and locative constructions. Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 41. 157–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David & Carol Rosen (eds.). 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 21. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach. 2007. Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies on sign language structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2013. Argument structure and argument structure alternations. In Marcel den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, 265–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta system: syntactic realization of verbal concepts. UiL-OTS Working Papers. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Theta system – An overview. Theoretical Linguistics 281. 229–290.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2001. Issues in the analysis of polycomponential verbs in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney: University of Sydney PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 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
Scott, Rose M. & Cynthia Fisher. 2007. Combining syntactic frames and semantic roles to acquire verbs. In Heather Caunt-Nulton, Samantha Kulatilake & I-hao Woo (eds.). Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 555–566. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California San Diego PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun classes and categorization, 181–214. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woll, Bencie. 2003. Modality, universality, and the similarities among sign languages: a historical perspective. In Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives in sign language research. Selected papers from TISLR 2000, 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Wood, Sandra. 1999. Semantic and syntactic aspects of negation in ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrika. 2003. Classificatory constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2006. Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2023. Morphology in Sign Languages. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sevgi, Hande & Kadir Gökgöz
2023. Classifiers, argument expression, and age of acquisition effects in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Sign Language & Linguistics 26:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bradley, Chuck, Evie A. Malaia, Jeffrey Mark Siskind, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marcus Perlman
2022. Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0262098 ff. DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim
2022. Argument Structure in Sign Languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
de Lint, Vanja
2020. From meaning to form and back in American Sign Language verbal classifier morphemes. Word Structure 13:1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh
2020. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38:2 ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo
Rissman, Lilia, Laura Horton, Molly Flaherty, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola, Diane Brentari & Susan Goldin-Meadow
2020. The communicative importance of agent-backgrounding: Evidence from homesign and Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognition 203 ► pp. 104332 ff. DOI logo
Börstell, Carl, Tommi Jantunen, Vadim Kimmelman, Vanja de Lint, Johanna Mesch & Marloes Oomen
2019. Transitivity prominence within and across modalities. Open Linguistics 5:1 ► pp. 666 ff. DOI logo
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 ► pp. 332 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2024. 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.

video

Video 1

Video 2

Video 3