Benutzer:123hanDlüb789/Classifier constructions in sign languages

Dieser Artikel (Classifier constructions in sign languages) ist im Entstehen begriffen und noch nicht Bestandteil der freien Enzyklopädie Wikipedia.

Wenn du dies liest:

• Der Text kann teilweise in einer Fremdsprache verfasst, unvollständig sein oder noch ungeprüfte Aussagen enthalten.
• Wenn du Fragen zum Thema hast, nimm am besten Kontakt mit dem Autor 123hanDlüb789 auf.

Wenn du diesen Artikel überarbeitest:

• Bitte denke daran, die Angaben im Artikel durch geeignete Quellen zu belegen und zu prüfen, ob er auch anderweitig den Richtlinien der Wikipedia entspricht (siehe Wikipedia:Artikel).
• Nach erfolgter Übersetzung kannst du diese Vorlage entfernen und den Artikel in den Artikelnamensraum verschieben. Die entstehende Weiterleitung kannst du schnelllöschen lassen.
• Importe inaktiver Accounts, die länger als drei Monate völlig unbearbeitet sind, werden gelöscht.

Vorlage:Importartikel/Wartung-2024-11

In Gebärdensprachen bezeichnet der Begriff Klassifikatorkonstruktion (auch Klassifikator genannt) ein morphologisches System, mit dem Ereignisse und Zustände ausgedruckt werden können. Sie verwenden Handform-Klassifikatoren zur Darstellung von Bewegung, Ort und Form. Klassifikatoren unterscheiden sich in ihrer Morphologie von Gebärden, nämlich darin, dass Gebärden aus einem einzigen Morpheme bestehen. Gebärden setzen sich aus vier phonologischen Merkmalen zusammen: Handform, Handstellung, Ausführungsstelle und Bewegung. Klassifikatoren hingegen bestehen aus vielen Morphemen. Insbesondere sind Handform, Ort und Bewegung alle für sich genommen bedeutungsvoll. Die Handform stellt eine Entität dar und die Bewegung der Hand stellt ikonisch die Bewegung dieser Entität dar. Die relative Position mehrerer Entitäten kann ikonisch in zweihändigen Konstruktionen dargestellt werden.

Klassifikatoren haben einige begrenzte Ähnlichkeiten mit den Gesten hörender Nicht-Gebärdensprachler. Wer die Gebärdensprache nicht beherrscht, kann die Bedeutung dieser Konstruktionen oft erraten, da sie oft ikonisch (nicht willkürlich) sind. Es wurde auch festgestellt, dass viele nicht verwandte Gebärdensprachen ähnliche Handformen für bestimmte Objekte verwenden. Kinder beherrschen diese Konstruktionen im Alter von 8 oder 9 Jahren. Zweihändige Klassifikatorkonstruktionen haben eine Figur-Grund-Beziehung. Insbesondere stellt der erste Klassifikator den Hintergrund dar, während der zweite das Objekt im Fokus darstellt. An der Verwendung von Klassifikatoren ist die rechte Gehirnhälfte beteiligt. Sie können auch kreativ zum Erzählen und für poetische Zwecke verwendet werden.

Nancy Frishberg prägte in diesem Zusammenhang in ihrem Aufsatz über die American Sign Language aus dem Jahr 1975 das Wort „Klassifikator“. Es wurden verschiedene Verbindungen zu Klassifikatoren in gesprochenen Sprachen hergestellt. Linguisten haben seitdem darüber diskutiert, wie man diese Konstruktionen am besten analysiert. Die Analysen unterscheiden sich darin, wie sehr sie sich bei ihrer Erklärung auf die Morphologie stützen. Einige haben ihren linguistischen Status sowie die Verwendung des Begriffs „Klassifikator“ an sich in Frage gestellt. Über ihre Syntax oder Phonologie ist nicht viel bekannt.

Beschreibung

Bei Klassifikatorkonstruktionen ist die Handform der Klassifikator, der eine Entität darstellt, beispielsweise ein Pferd.Vorlage:Sfn Der Gebärdenträger kann dessen Bewegung und/oder Geschwindigkeit auf ikonische Weise darstellen. Das heißt, die Bedeutung der Bewegung lässt sich anhand ihrer Form erraten.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Ein Pferd, das über einen Zaun springt, kann dadurch dargestellt werden, dass die ruhende Hand der Zaun und die bewegte Hand das Pferd ist.Vorlage:Sfn Allerdings sind nicht alle Kombinationen aus Handform und Bewegung möglich.Vorlage:Sfn Klassifikatorkonstruktionen fungieren als Verben.Vorlage:Sfn

Die Handform, Bewegung und relative Position sind in diesen Konstruktionen für sich genommen bedeutsam.Vorlage:Sfn Dies steht im Gegensatz zu zweihändigen lexikalischen Gebärden, bei denen die beiden Hände allein nicht zur Bedeutung des Zeichens beitragen.Vorlage:Sfn Die Handformen in einer zweihändigen Klassifikatorkonstruktion werden in einer bestimmten Reihenfolge signiert, wenn sie die Position einer Entität darstellen. Das erste Zeichen stellt normalerweise den unbeweglichen Boden dar (beispielsweise eine Oberfläche). Das zweite Zeichen stellt die kleinere Figur im Fokus dar (beispielsweise eine gehende Person).Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Während die Handform normalerweise durch die visuellen Aspekte der betreffenden Entität bestimmt wird,Vorlage:Sfn gibt es noch andere Faktoren. Die Art und Weise, wie der Handelnde mit der Entität interagiertVorlage:Sfn oder die Bewegung der EntitätVorlage:Sfn können ebenfalls die Wahl der Handform beeinflussen. Klassifikatoren treten außerdem häufig gemeinsam mit Verben auf.Vorlage:Sfn Über ihre SyntaxVorlage:Sfn und PhonologieVorlage:Sfn weiß man noch nicht viel.

Klassifikatorkonstruktionen werden aus der Perspektive des Gebärdensprachlers erstellt. Das bedeutet, dass der Empfänger die Konstruktion gedanklich horizontal umdrehen muss, um sie richtig zu verstehen. Wenn der Empfänger beispielsweise sieht, dass der Gebärdensprachler ein Objekt aus seiner Perspektive auf die rechte Seite legt, bedeutet das, dass er (der Empfänger) die Konstruktion gedanklich umdrehen muss, um zu verstehen, dass es auf der linken Seite liegt. Muttersprachler scheinen dazu automatisch in der Lage zu sein.Vorlage:Sfn

Zweihändige lexikalische Gebärden sind in ihrer Form durch zwei Einschränkungen beschränkt. Die Dominanzbedingung besagt, dass die nicht-dominante Hand sich nicht bewegen kann und dass ihre Handform aus einem eingeschränkten Satz stammt. Die Symmetriebedingung besagt, dass beide Hände dieselbe Handform, Bewegung und Orientierung haben müssen.Vorlage:Sfn Klassifikatorkonstruktionen hingegen können beide dieser Einschränkungen aufheben. Dies verdeutlicht den Unterschied in Phonologie und Morphologie zwischen lexikalischen Zeichen und Klassifikatoren.Vorlage:Sfn

Anders als die laute Sprache verfügen Gebärdensprachen über zwei Artikulationsorgane, die sich unabhängig voneinander bewegen können.Vorlage:Sfn Die aktivere Hand wird als dominante Hand bezeichnet, während die weniger aktive Hand nicht-dominant ist.Vorlage:Sfn Die aktive Hand ist dieselbe wie die dominante Hand des Gebärdenenden , obwohl die Rollen der Hände vertauscht werden können.Vorlage:Sfn Die beiden Hände ermöglichen es dem Gebärdenden, zwei Dinge gleichzeitig darzustellen, wenn auch mit gewissen Einschränkungen. So kann zum Beispiel eine Frau, die an einem im Zickzack fahrenden Auto vorbeigeht, nicht gleichzeitig gebärden. Das liegt daran, dass zwei gleichzeitige Konstruktionen keine unterschiedlichen Bewegungen haben können; man müsste sie nacheinander gebärden.Vorlage:Sfn

Argument structure

Classifiers constructions may show agreement with various arguments in its domain. In the example below, the handshape agrees with the direct object, using a "thin object" handshape for flowers and a "round object" handshape for apples. Agreement between subject and indirect object is marked with a path movement from the former to the latter. This manner of marking agreement is shared with some lexical signs.Vorlage:Sfn

Vorlage:Interlinear Vorlage:InterlinearThere are also correlations in American Sign Language (ASL) between specific types of classifier constructions and the kind of argument structure they have:Vorlage:Sfn

1. Predicates with a handling classifier are transitive (with an external and an internal argument)
2. Predicates with a whole entity classifier are intransitive unaccusative (one single internal argument)
3. Predicates with a body part classifier are intransitive unergative (one single external argument)

Classification

There have been many attempts at classifying the types of classifiers. The number of proposed types have ranged from two to seven.Vorlage:Sfn Overlap in terminology across the classifications systems can cause confusion.Vorlage:Sfn In 1993, Engberg-Pedersen grouped the handshapes used in classifier constructions in four categories:Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn

• Whole entity classifiers: The handshape represents an object. It can also represent a non-physical concept, such as culture.Vorlage:Sfn The same object may be represented by multiple handshapes to focus on different aspects of the concept. For example, a CD may be represented by a flat palm or by a rounded C-hand.Vorlage:Sfn
• Extension and surface classifiers: The handshape represents the depth or width of an entity. For example, a thin wire, a narrow board or the wide surface of a car's roof. These are not always considered to be classifiers in more recent analyses.Vorlage:Sfn
• Handling/instrument classifiers: The handshape represents the hands handling an entity or instrument, such as a knife. They resemble whole entity classifiers, but they semantically imply an agent handling the entity. Just as with whole entity classifiers, the entity in handling classifiers does not have to be a physical object.Vorlage:Sfn
• Limb classifiers: The handshape represents limbs such as legs, feet or paws. Unlike other classifier types, these cannot be combined with motion or location morphemes.Vorlage:Sfn

The handshape's movement is grouped similarly:Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn

• Location morphemes:Vorlage:Sfn Movement represents the location of an entity through a short, downward movement. The entity's orientation can be represented by shifting the hand's orientation.
• Motion morphemes: Movement represents the entity's movement along a path.
• Manner morphemes: Movement represents the manner of motion, but not the path.
• Extension morphemes: Movement does not represent actual motion, but the outline of the entity's shape or perimeter. It can also represent the configuration of multiple similar entities, such as a line of books.

Whole entity classifiers and handling classifiers are the most established classifier types.Vorlage:Sfn The former occur with intransitive verbs, the latter occur with transitive verbs.Vorlage:Sfn Most linguists don't consider extension and surface classifiers to be true classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn This is because they appear in a larger range of syntactic positions. They also cannot be referred back to anaphorically in the discourse, nor can they be combined with motion verbs.Vorlage:Sfn

Certain types of classifiers and movements cannot be combined for grammatical reasons. For example, in ASL manner of motion cannot be combined with limb classifiers. To indicate a person limping in a circle, one must first sign the manner of motion (limping), then the limb classifiers (the legs).Vorlage:Sfn

There is little research on the differences in classifier constructions across sign languages.Vorlage:Sfn Most seem to have them and can be described in similar terms.Vorlage:Sfn Many unrelated languages encode the same entity with similar handshapes.Vorlage:Sfn This is even the case for children not exposed to language who use a home sign system to communicate.Vorlage:Sfn Handling classifiers along with extension and surface classifiers are especially likely to be the same across languages.Vorlage:Sfn

Relation to gestures

Gestures are manual structures that are not as conventionalized as linguistics signs.Vorlage:Sfn Hearing non-signers use forms similar to classifiers when asked to communicate through gesture. There is a 70% overlap in how signers and non-signers use movement and location, but only a 25% overlap for handshapes. Non-signers use a greater amount of handshapes, but the signers' have more complex phonology.Vorlage:Sfn Non-signers also do not constrain their gestures to a morphological system as with sign language users.Vorlage:Sfn

Lexicalization

Certain classifier constructions may also, over time, lose their general meaning and become fully-fledged signs. This process is referred to as lexicalization.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn These types of signs are referred to as frozen signs.Vorlage:Sfn For example, the ASL sign FALL seems to have come from a classifier construction. This classifier construction consists of a V-shaped hand, which represents the legs, moving down. As it became more like a sign, it could also be used with non-animate referents, like apples or boxes. As a sign, the former classifier construction now conforms to the usual constraints of a word, such as consisting of one syllable.Vorlage:Sfn The resulting sign must not be a simple sum of its combined parts, but can have a different meaning entirely.Vorlage:Sfn They may serve as the root morpheme that serves as the base for aspectual and derivational affixes. Classifiers cannot take these types of affixes.Vorlage:Sfn

History

It wasn't until the 1960s that sign languages were being studied seriously.Vorlage:Sfn Initially, classifier constructions were not regarded as full linguistic systems.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn This was due to their high degree of apparent variability and iconicity.Vorlage:Sfn Consequently, early analyses described them in terms of visual imagery.Vorlage:Sfn Linguists started focusing on proving that sign languages were real languages. They started paying less attention to their iconic properties and more to the way they are organized.Vorlage:Sfn

Frishberg was the firstVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn to use the term "classifier" in her 1975 paper on arbitrariness and iconicity in ASL to refer to the handshape unit used in classifier constructions.Vorlage:Sfn

The start of the study of sign language classifier coincided with a renewed interest in spoken language classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn In 1977, Allan performed a survey of classifier systems in spoken languages. He compared classifier constructions to the "predicate classifiers" used in the Athabaskan languages.Vorlage:Sfn These are a family of oral indigenous languages spoken throughout North America.Vorlage:Sfn Reasons for comparing them included standardizing terminology and proving that sign languages are similar to spoken languages.Vorlage:Sfn Allan described predicate classifiers as separate verbal morphemes that denote some salient aspect of the associated noun.Vorlage:Sfn However, Schembri pointed out the "terminological confusion" surrounding classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn Allan's description and comparison came to draw criticism. Later analyses showed that these predicate classifiers did not constitute separate morphemes. Instead, they were better described as classificatory verbs stems rather than classifiers.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn

In 1982, Supalla showed that classifier constructions were part of a complex morphological system in ASL.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn He split the classifier handshapes into two main categories: semantic classifiers (also called "entity classifiers") and size and shape specifiers (SASSes).Vorlage:Sfn SASS categories use handshapes to describe the visual properties of an entity. Entity classifiers are less iconic. they refer to a general semantic class of objects such as "thin and straight" or "flat and round".Vorlage:Sfn Handling classifiers would be the third type of classifier to be described. This classifier imitates the hand holding or handling an instrument.Vorlage:Sfn A fourth type, the body-part classifier, represents a human or animal body parts, usually the limbs.Vorlage:Sfn Linguist adopted and modified Supalla's morphological analysis for other sign languages.Vorlage:Sfn

In the 1990s, a renewed interested in the relation between sign languages and gesture took place.Vorlage:Sfn Some linguists, such as Vorlage:Harvp, called the linguistic status of classifier constructions into question, especially the location and movement.Vorlage:Sfn There were two reasons for doing so. First, the imitative gestures of non-signers are similar to classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn Second, very many types of movement and locations can be used in these constructions. Liddell suggested that it would be more accurate to consider them to be a mixture of linguistic and extra-linguistic elements, such as gesture.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Schembri and colleagues similarly suggested in 2005 that classifier constructions are "blends of linguistic and gestural elements".Vorlage:Sfn Regardless of the high degree of variability, Schembri and colleagues argue that classifier constructions are still grammatically restrained by various factors. For example, they are more abstract and categorical than the gestural forms made by non-signers.Vorlage:Sfn It is now generally accepted that classifiers have both linguistic and gestural properties.Vorlage:Sfn

Similar to Allan, Grinevald also compared sign language classifiers to spoken classifiers in 2000.Vorlage:Sfn Specifically, she focused on verbal classifiers, which act as verbal affixes.Vorlage:Sfn She lists the following example from Cayuga, an Iroquoian language:Vorlage:Sfn

The classifier for the word vehicle in Cayuga, Vorlage:Not a typo, is similar to whole entity classifiers in sign languages. Similar examples have been found in Digueño, which has morphemes that act like extension and surface classifiers in sign languages. Both examples are attached to the verb and cannot stand alone.Vorlage:Sfn It is now accepted that classifiers in spoken and signed languages are similar, contrary to what was previously believed.Vorlage:Sfn They both track references grammatically, can form new words and may emphasize a salient aspect of an entity.Vorlage:Sfn The main difference is that sign language only have verbal classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn The classifiers systems in spoken languages are more diverse in function and distribution.Vorlage:Sfn

Despite the many proposed alternative names to the term classifier,Vorlage:Sfn and questionable relationship to spoken language classifiers,Vorlage:Sfn it continues to be a commonly used term in sign language research.Vorlage:Sfn

Linguistic analyses

There is no consensus on how to analyze classifier constructions.Vorlage:Sfn Linguistic analyses can be divided into three major categories: representational, morphological, and lexical. Representational analyses were the first attempt at describing classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn This analysis views them as manual representations of movements in the world. Because classifier constructions are highly iconic, representational analyses argue that this form-meaning connection should be the basis for linguistic analysis. This was argued because finite sets of morphemes or parameters cannot account for all potentially meaningful classifier constructions.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn This view has been criticized because it predicts impossible constructions. For example, in ASL, a walking classifier handshape cannot be used to represent the movement of an animal in the animal noun class, even though it is an iconic representation of the event.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Clarify

Lexical analyses view classifiers as partially lexicalized words.Vorlage:Sfn

A morphological analysis views classifiers as a series of morphemes,Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn and this is currently the predominant school of thought.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn In this analyses, classifier verbs are combinations of verbal roots with numerous affixes.Vorlage:Sfn If the handshape is taken to consist of several morphemes, it is not clear how they should be segmented or analyzed.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn For example, the fingertips in Swedish Sign Language can be bent in order to represent the front of a car getting damaged in a crash; this led Supalla to posit that each finger might act as a separate morpheme.Vorlage:Sfn The morphological analysis has been criticized for its complexity.Vorlage:Sfn Liddell found that to analyze a classifier construction in ASL where one person walks to another would require anywhere between 14 and 28 morphemes.Vorlage:Sfn Other linguists, however, consider the handshape to consist of one, solitary morpheme.Vorlage:Sfn In 2003, Schembri stated that there is no convincing evidence that all handshapes are multi-morphemic. This was based on grammaticality judgments from native signers.Vorlage:Sfn

Morphological analyses differ in what aspect of the construction they consider the root. Supalla argued that the morpheme which expresses motion or location is the verbal root to which the handshape morpheme is affixed.Vorlage:Sfn Engberg-Pedersen disagreed with Supalla, arguing that the choice of handshape can fundamentally change how the movement is interpreted. Therefore, she claims the movement should be the root. For example, putting a book on a shelf and a cat jumping on a shelf both use the same movement in ASL, despite being fundamentally different acts.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Classifiers are affixes, meaning that they cannot occur alone and must be bound.Vorlage:Sfn Classifiers on their own are not specified for place of articulation or movement. This might explain why they are bound: this missing information is filled in by the root.Vorlage:Sfn

Certain classifiers are similar to pronouns.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Like pronouns, the signer has to first introduce the referent, usually by signing or fingerspelling the noun.Vorlage:Sfn The classifier is then taken to refer to this referent.Vorlage:Sfn Signers do not have to re-introduce the same referent in later constructions; it is understood to still refer to the that referent.Vorlage:Sfn Some classifiers also denote a specific group the same way that the pronoun "she" can refer to women or waitresses.Vorlage:Sfn Similarly, ASL has a classifier which refers to vehicles, but not people or animals.Vorlage:Sfn In this view, verbal classifiers may be seen as agreement markers for their referents with the movement as its root.Vorlage:Sfn

Acquisition

The gestures of speaking children sometimes resemble classifier constructions.Vorlage:Sfn However, signing children learn these constructions as part of a grammatical system, not as iconic representations of events. Owing to their complexity, it takes a long time to master them.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Children do not master the use of classifier constructions until the age of eight or nine.Vorlage:Sfn There are many reasons for this relatively late mastery. Children must learn to express different viewpoints correctly, select the correct handshape and order the construction properly.Vorlage:Sfn Schick found that the handling classifiers were the most difficult ones to master. This was followed by the extension and surface classifier. The whole entity classifiers had the fewest production errors.Vorlage:Sfn Young children prefer to substitute complex classifiers with simpler, more general ones.Vorlage:Sfn

Children start using classifiers at the age of two.Vorlage:Sfn These early forms are mostly handling and whole entity classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn Simple movements are produced correctly as early as 2.6 years of age.Vorlage:Sfn Complex movements, such as arcs, are more difficult for children to express. The acquisition of location in classifier constructions depends on the complexity between the referents and the related spatial locations.Vorlage:Sfn Simple extension and surface classifiers are produced correctly at 4.5 years of age.Vorlage:Sfn By the age of five to six, children usually select the correct handshape.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn At age six to seven, children still make mistakes in representing spatial relationships. In signs with a figure-ground relationship, these children will sometimes omit the ground entirely.Vorlage:Sfn This could be because mentioning them together requires proper coordination of both hands. Another explanation is that children have more trouble learning optional structures in general.Vorlage:Sfn Although mostly mastered, children aged nine still have difficulty understanding the locative relations between classifiers.Vorlage:Sfn

It is widely accepted that iconicity helps in learning spoken languages, although the picture is less clear for sign languages.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Some have argued that iconicity plays no role in acquiring classifier construction. This is claimed because constructions are highly complex and are not mastered until late childhood.Vorlage:Sfn Other linguists claim that children as young as three years old can produce adult-like constructions,Vorlage:Sfn although only with one hand.Vorlage:Sfn Slobin found that children under three years of age seem to "bootstrap" natural gesture to make learning the handshape easier.Vorlage:Sfn Most young children do not seem to represent spatial situations iconically.Vorlage:Sfn They also do not express complex path movements at once, but rather do so sequentially.Vorlage:Sfn In adults, it has been shown that iconicity can help in learning lexical signs.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn

Brain structures

As with spoken languages, the left hemisphere of the brain is dominant for sign language production.Vorlage:Sfn However, the right hemisphere is superior in some aspects. It is better at processing concrete words, like bed or flower, compared to abstract ones.Vorlage:Sfn It is also important in showing spatial relations between entities iconically.Vorlage:Sfn It is especially important in using and understanding classifier constructions.Vorlage:Sfn Signers with damage to the right hemisphere cannot properly describe items in a room. They can remember the items themselves, but cannot use classifiers to express their location.Vorlage:Sfn

The parietal cortex is activated in both hemispheres when perceiving the spatial location of objects.Vorlage:Sfn For spoken languages, describing spatial relationships only engages the left parietal cortex. For sign languages, both the left and right parietal cortex are needed when using classifier constructions.Vorlage:Sfn This might explain why people with right hemisphere damage have trouble with expressing these constructions. Namely, they cannot encode external spatial relations and use them while signing.Vorlage:Sfn

In order to use certain classifier constructions, the signer must be able to visualize the entity and its shape, orientation and location.Vorlage:Sfn It has been shown that deaf signers are better at generating spatial mental images than hearing non-signers.Vorlage:Sfn The spatial memory span of deaf signers is also superior.Vorlage:Sfn This is linked to their use of sign language, rather than being deaf.Vorlage:Sfn This suggests that using sign language might change the way the brain organizes non-linguistic information.Vorlage:Sfn

Stylistic and creative use

It is possible for a signer to "hold" the non-dominant hand in a classifier construction. This is usually the background. This may serve the function of keeping relevant information present during the conversation.Vorlage:Sfn During the hold, the dominant hand might also articulate other signs that are relevant to the first classifier.Vorlage:Sfn

In performative story-telling and poetry, classifiers may also serve creative purposes.Vorlage:SfnVorlage:Sfn Just as in spoken language, skilled language use can indicate eloquence. It has been observed in ASL poetry that skilled signers may combine classifiers and lexical signs.Vorlage:Sfn The sign for BAT and DARK are identical in British Sign Language; they're also both articulated at the face. This may be used for poetic effect. For example, likening bats with darkness by using an entity classifier showing a bat flying at the face.Vorlage:Sfn Classifiers may also be used in expressively characterizing animals or non-human objects.Vorlage:Sfn

References

• Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir, Carol Padden, Wendy Sandler: Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages, S. 53–84. 
• Charlotte Lee Baker-Shenk, Dennis Cokely, Cokely, Dennis.: American sign language : a teacher's resource text on grammar and culture. Clerc Books, Gallaudet University Press, Washington, D.C. 1981, ISBN 0-930323-84-X. 
• Baker, van den Bogaerde, Pfau, Schermer: The Linguistics of Sign Languages. John Benjamins, 2016, ISBN 978-90-272-1230-6. 
• Elena Benedicto, Diane Brentari: Where did all the arguments go?: argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 22. Jahrgang, Nr. 4, 2004, S. 743–810, doi:10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2. 
• Diane Brentari: Sign Languages. Cambridge University Press, 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-88370-2. 
• Diane Brentari, Jordan Fenlon, Kearsy Cormier: Sign language phonology. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. 2018, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.117. 
• Chris Brozdowski, Kristen Secora, Karen Emmorey: Assessing the Comprehension of Spatial Perspectives in ASL Classifier Constructions. In: The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 24. Jahrgang, Nr. 3, 11. März 2019, ISSN 1081-4159, S. 214–222, doi:10.1093/deafed/enz005, PMID 30856254, PMC 6546157 (freier Volltext). 
• Geraci Carlo: Structuring the argument. Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2014, ISBN 978-90-272-0827-9, S. 45–60. 
• Kearsy Cormier, Adam Schembri, Bencie Woll: Diversity across sign languages and spoken languages: Implications for language universals. In: Lingua. 120. Jahrgang, Nr. 12, 2010, S. 2664–2667, doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.016. 
• Onno A Crasborn: A linguistic analysis of the use of the two hands in sign language poetry. In: Linguistics in the Netherlands. 23. Jahrgang, Nr. 1, 2006, S. 65–77, doi:10.1075/avt.23.09cra. 
• Asa DeMatteo: On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. 1977, S. 109–136. 
• Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen: Space in Danish Sign Language. The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. In: Nordic Journal of Linguistics. 19. Jahrgang, 1993, S. 406, doi:10.1017/S0332586500003115. 
• Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen: Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, ISBN 0-8058-4269-1, How Composite Is a Fall? Adults’ and Children’s Descriptions of Different Types of Falls in Danish Sign Language. 
• Karen Emmorey: Language, Cognition, and the Brain. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4106-0398-2. 
• Karen Emmorey, Herzig Melissa: Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages. Routledge, 2008, ISBN 978-0-415-65381-7, Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL, S. 222. 
• Theodore Fernald, Paul Platero: The Athabaskan Languages: Perspectives on a Native American Language Family. Oxford University Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-19-511947-3 (archive.org). 
• Collete Grinevald: Systems of nominal classifications. Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 978-0-521-06523-8, A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers, S. 50–92. 
• Nancy Frishberg: Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. In: Language. 51. Jahrgang, Nr. 3, 1975, S. 696–719, doi:10.2307/412894, JSTOR:412894. 
• Joseph Hill, Diane Lillo-Martin, Sandra Wood: Sign Languages: Structures and Contexts. Routledge, 2019, ISBN 978-1-138-08916-7. 
• Allan Keith: Classifiers. In: Language. 53. Jahrgang, Nr. 2, 1977, S. 285–311, doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0043. 
• Vadim Kimmelman, Roland Pfau, Enoch O. Aboh: Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign Language. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 38. Jahrgang, Nr. 2, April 2019, S. 539–579, doi:10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9. 
• Scott K Liddell: The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, ISBN 1-4106-0497-7, S. 303–320. 
• Scott K Liddell: Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-511-61505-4. 
• Scott K Liddell: Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, ISBN 0-8058-4269-1, Sources of Meaning in ASL Classifier Predicates, S. 199–220. 
• Marc Marschark, Patricia Elizabeth Spencer: Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003, ISBN 0-19-514997-1. 
• Chloë R. Marshall, Gary Morgan: From Gesture to Sign Language: Conventionalization of Classifier Constructions by Adult Hearing Learners of British Sign Language. In: Topics in Cognitive Science. 7. Jahrgang, Nr. 1, 2015, ISSN 1756-8765, S. 61–80, doi:10.1111/tops.12118, PMID 25329326 (city.ac.uk [PDF]). 
• Gary Morgan, Bencie Woll: Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, ISBN 0-8058-4269-1, The Development of Reference Switching Encoded Through Body Classifiers in British Sign Language. 
• Gerardo Ortega, Annika Schiefner, Aslı Özyürek: Hearing non-signers use their gestures to predict iconic form-meaning mappings at first exposure to signs. In: Cognition. 191. Jahrgang, 2019, S. 103996, doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2019.06.008, PMID 31238248 (bham.ac.uk [PDF]). 
• Gerardo Ortega: Iconicity and Sign Lexical Acquisition: A Review. In: Frontiers in Psychology. 8. Jahrgang, 2017, ISSN 1664-1078, S. 1280, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280, PMID 28824480, PMC 5539242 (freier Volltext). 
• Wendy Sandler, Diane Lillo-Martin: Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-48395-7. 
• Adam Schembri: Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Psychology Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-415-65381-7, Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. 
• Adam Schembri, Caroline Jones, Denis Burnham: Comparing Action Gestures and Classifier Verbs of Motion: Evidence From Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and Nonsigners' Gestures Without Speech. In: The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 10. Jahrgang, Nr. 3, 2005, S. 272–290, doi:10.1093/deafed/eni029, PMID 15858072. 
• Brenda Schick: The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In: Theoretical Issues. 1990, S. 358–374. 
• Dan Slobin: A Cognitive/Functional Perspective on the Acquisition of "Classifiers". Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003, S. 271–296. 
• Ted Roland Supalla: Structure and Acquisition of Verbs of Motion and Location in American Sign Language. 1982. 
• Rachel Sutton-Spence: Sign language: An International Handbook. De gruyter mouton, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-020421-6, Poetry. 
• Robin L. Thompson: Iconicity in Language Processing and Acquisition: What Signed Languages Reveal: Iconicity in Sign Language. In: Language and Linguistics Compass. 5. Jahrgang, Nr. 9, 2011, S. 603–616, doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00301.x. 
• Inge Zwitserlood: Sign language: an international handbook. De gruyter mouton, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-11-026132-5, Classifiers. 

[[Category:Linguistics]] [[Category:Sign language]] [[Category:Linguistic morphology]] [[Category:Parts of speech]]