Cover not available

In: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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

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
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.11bar
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
References (38)
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 187–203.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Charolles, M. 1999. Associative anaphora and its interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 311–326.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuxac, C. 2000. La Langue des Signes Française (LSF): Les voies de lʼiconicité. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar logo with link to 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, L. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51(4): 940–961.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nouwen, R. 2003. Plural Pronominal Anaphora in Context: Dynamic Aspects of Quantification. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perniss, P. 2007. Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). PhD dissertation, Radboud University.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarz, F. 2013. Two kinds of definites cross-linguistically. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(10): 534–559.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. San Diego CA: College-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, I. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Classifiers. In Sign Language. An International Handbook, R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds), 158–186. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Simper-Allen, Pia & Carl Börstell
2025. Depicting handshapes for animate referents in Swedish Sign Language. Open Linguistics 11:1 DOI logo
Zorzi, Giorgia, Raquel Veiga Busto, Gemma Barberà, Alexandra Navarrete-González & Josep Quer
2025. Choice of classifier handshape in Catalan Sign Language: A corpus study. Open Linguistics 11:1 DOI logo
Barberà, Gemma & Josep Quer
2023. 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
Steinbach, Markus
2023. At-issueness across modalities – are gestural components (more) at-issue in sign languages?. Theoretical Linguistics 49:3-4 ► pp. 291 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
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue