West... wha--?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daryl G Crouse on October 7, 2009 at 3:18am

Sources of Meaning in ASL
Classifier Predicates 1
Gallaudet University

Verbs capable of being directed in space were initially called directional verbs (Fischer &
Gough, 1978) or multidirectional verbs (Friedman, 1976). By the mid-1970s, ASL researchers
had identified a category of signs with characteristics that appeared to distinguish them from
other directional signs. Identifying this class of signs was the first attempt at subdividing the
class of directional verbs. The signs in this class were said to share the distinctive characteristic that each is produced with a meaningful handshape representing some entity. In addition, for many classifier predicates, the movement of the hand describes the movement of the entity represented by the hand. Frishberg (1975) describes these handshapes as being “… in particular orientations to stand for certain semantic features of noun arguments” (p. 715). This class of signs came to be called classifier predicates (Liddell, 1977) or verbs of motion and location (Supalla, 1978). The sign in Fig. 9.1 is an example of the type of sign Frishberg (1975) describes as being produced with a classifier handshape.

Fig. 9.1

Fig. 9.2
Most analysts would treat the handshape in this sign as a vehicle classifier. However, Baker
and Cokely (1980) describe oriented handshapes, rather than handshapes alone, as carrying the
meaning. The sign in Fig. 9.1 could be used to describe the movement of various types of vehi-
cles from a clear starting point A to a destination B. The vehicle being described could be a car, a bicycle, a boat, or a motorcycle. Thus, the handshape does not signify any specific kind of vehicle, but rather, appears to be used to describe the movement or placement of any member of a class of vehicles, hence the term classifier. 2 For the purposes of this chapter, I will use the term classifier predicate to label the verbs discussed. I am using this term simply as a convenient label to identify a member of this class of verbs.

Initially, no distinctions were made with respect to the significance of the directionality of
classifier predicates and other directional verbs. The first attempt at separating out different
functions of directionality was based on how the directional movement of signs is interpreted.
The directionality of verbs of motion and location has a gradient, locative significance whereas
the directionality of indicating/agreement verbs serves to identify entities corresponding to subjects and objects (Liddell, 1980).

Mandel (1977) uses the term marker rather than classifier and includes a description of the
significance of location and motion in his definition of markers: “An articulator used in a construct so as to be locatively iconic of an object, so that its behavior and situation in the signing space (whether stationary or moving) represent those of the object” (Mandel, 1977, p. 95). 3 The verb HAND-PICK-UP-FLAT-THIN-ENTITY in Fig. 9.2 is also considered to be a classifier predicate, although it describes the handling of an entity rather than directly representing the entity itself (Boyes-Braem, 1981; McDonald, 1982; Schick, 1980; Supalla, 1982).

The second photo shows the signer gazing at the invisible entity being held. The hand configuration does not represent that entity, but rather, represents the hand holding that entity. In producing this verb the signer is not copying the handshape used in the actual event being described; rather, the handshape in this verb is fixed. This makes it like the handshape in Fig. 9.1, which is also lexically fixed. This handshape is highly iconic because the handshape producing this verb signifies a hand.

In addition to the meaningful aspects of the sign discussed above, the locations and orientations of the hands are meaningfully tied to the locations and orientations of the entities being described.

The verb VEHICLE-BE-AT in Fig. 9.3 represents yet another type of classifier predicate. 4 It
is produced with a small downward movement followed by a hold. This sign predicates the presence of a vehicle at a place. Still another type of classifier predicate describes the size, shape, or extent of entities (Klima & Bellugi, 1979; McDonald, 1982, Supalla, 1982). In Fig. 9.4, for example, the verb,

Fig. 9.3

Fig. 9.4
BUMPY-BROAD-SURFACE-EXTEND-TO describes a bumpy surface. As in the previous examples, the handshapes are meaningful. Each of the flat B-handshapes represents a broad surface (Supalla, 1982). Through a continuous rotating oscillation of the wrist, the signer produces an undulating movement. In this particular case, the wavy up and down movement of the hand depicts a bumpy surface. The meaningful handshape tells us that the bumpy surface is broad. Signs in which the movement describes a shape are commonly produced with one stationary hand and a moving hand depicting a shape.

There was no attempt to produce a listing of every possible classifier predicate. Instead, ways
were sought to provide a productive means of accounting for all possible signs of this type rather
than storing each one as a lexical entry. In the late 1970s, two diametrically opposed views of
how to do this emerged. DeMatteo (1977) proposes a type of underlying form in which visual
imagery rather than morphemes determines the meaning. Supalla (1978, 1982, 1986) provides
an alternate model in which classifier predicates are composed entirely of morphemes, and in
which visual imagery plays no role whatsoever. Below I examine these two diametrically opposed analyses.

Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Language, http://www.questia.com/read/106443502?title=Perspectives%20on%20Cla... (last visited Oct. 7, 2009).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anthony Nelson on October 13, 2009 at 5:38pm

When I was in my ITP I learned signers perspective in my ASL 2 class and have used it ever since. I am not sure and would question how switching the perspective would be for the students benefit? I can only guess that the instructors are going to flip the perspective in order help students understand what they are talking about. Think about a Yoga class or something where someone is facing you, they tell you to 'lift your arm' they don't specify which arm but they lift their right arm people looking on often lift their left. This is only a educated guess, in the long run it might work but then at some point the students will have to flipp back and unlearn what they have been taught.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Glass on October 14, 2009 at 8:20am

Personally, I take issue with this whole flip-the- perspective-description-thing. I know how to (referring to my original post) describe the placement of cities (west-to-east, my left to my right). It’s what I’ve been taught, it’s what Deaf use naturally, and that’s what I will continue using. I don’t really buy into the whole “it’s for the benefit of the student thing” for this one simple reason: For whom would we, as interpreters, be signing this? Deaf, of course!

Now that may seem like a totally naïve, stubbornly noob-ish thing to say, but here are the points, reasoning, and rationale behind my opinion…

This "new teaching", this “new way” is confusing to first time [hearing] signers, who are developing their basic language skills. It does not afford them the opportunity to utilize the correct description method used naturally by deaf. Classroom setting or not, deaf use the signer’s perspective. Teaching ASL students / baby terps another way (an opposite way) creates a separate rule for interpreters which will only serve to create further confusion - not only in noob terps receptiveness, but in their own descriptions to deaf recipients.

But the argument put forth in my prep class supposes that an interpreter, who has learned and utilizes this “new” method, is in the classroom environment interpreting for deaf students… that somehow, this is going to make things clearer when perhaps, in fact, will inadvertently have the complete opposite effect. I tend to believe that another casualty of this action is that it can and likely will affect the student’s natural language development (think K - elementary school… young, impressionable minds still developing language), or perhaps in the case of HS or higher level students who already acquired language, leave the student thinking “Oh, man… this interpreter doesn’t know what the heck they’re saying!” - or perhaps worse “My interpreter sucks.” Valid points?

So, I’m casting these thoughts into the wind to see where it finds you, personally. Not fishing for a textbook response - just your honest opinion, a sharing of your own experience (if you’ve encountered this before), or perhaps, just your take on all this.

Do [we] have the right to directly or indirectly affect another’s language in this way? Should this be an accepted and acceptable form of describing?

▶ Reply to This