Directional Verbs

Fri Mar 27 05:47:10 UTC 2009

What's clear about this discussion is that this 
terminology is confusing.   The underlying 
problem is that the linguistic distinctions were 
designed for use with a language of a quite 
different type, such as English (see Slobin, 
2005, 2008).  In my opinion, the terminology is 
not appropriate to a signed language such as 
ASL.   Signed verbs of the sort under discussion 
move from a source to a goal.  It is not 
important to the grammar whether those anchoring 
points of the motion are animate or inanimate and 
whether the motion is physical (e.g. throwing, 
putting, giving, walking to, flying to) or not 
(e.g. looking at, asking to, scolding, 
flattering).  Whenever the starting and/or 
stopping point of the motion is a spatial 
location to which a meaning (reference) has been 
assigned, one can say that the verb is 
inflected-that is, it indicates 
source/goal.  Beyond that, the distinctions are 
simply unnecessary, and therefore confusing.

Sign language linguistics can advance by 
abandoning borrowed grammatical distinctions from 
languages like English (but not all spoken 
languages) and devising appropriate designations 
for grammatical distinctions that are encoded in 
the embodied modalities of the language.  All of 
the problematic verbs here are directional (in 
the everyday understanding of the word).  A verb 
that includes a handshape that indicates a 
particular type of referent includes a depictive 
element, but the verb itself is more than 
depictive, because it also has directional 
movement.  (In fact, both the handshape and the 
directional movement can be considered depictive.)

In a sense, all of the verbs under discussion 
involve displacement, if one includes 
metaphorical or symbolic displacement.  If an 
object that is caused to be displaced ends up in 
a particular location--say, in front of a 
location that has been established as encoding an 
entity--it can be either a verb of putting or a 
verb of giving, depending on the execution of the 
movement, especially whether it ends in a 
hold.  There is no distinction between 
"agreement" and "spatial" dislocation here, but 
rather a morphological means of indicating the 
role played by the goal of the movement with 
relation to the referent established at that 
goal.  For example, if the cup goes from me and 
ends up at a locus established for ‘John’, he can 
be either the recipient (‘give’) or the referent 
location for the endstate (‘put in front 
of’).  If one wishes to uses the terms 
"agreement" and "inflection," these terms should 
apply equally to verbs like 'put' and verbs like 
'give'.  However, there are no "subjects," 
"objects," or "indirect objects" in ASL and other 
sign languages such as those used in Europe, China, Japan, and elsewhere.

And if the referent type of the dislocated object 
is indicated by a handshape that refers to a 
property of that object, then one might refer to 
the verb as "depictive," though it would be more 
informative to state in what ways the verb is 
depictive (handshape, internal movement, 
directionality, obligatory nonmanual components, 
etc.).  It is also misleading to use the borrowed 
term “classifer” for handshapes that refer to an 
entity by means of one of its properties (e.g. 
shape), but that’s an argument for a different 
discussion.  In the Berkeley Transcription System 
(BTS) (Hoiting & Slobin, 2002) such handshapes 
are more objectively referred to as “property markers.”

References are listed below.  They are 
downloadable at 
<http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm>http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
[click on Slobin-Papers on sign language].

Dan Slobin

         Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). 
Transcription as a tool for understanding: The 
Berkeley Transcription System for sign language 
research (BTS). In G. Morgan & B. Woll (Eds.), 
Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 
55-75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
         Slobin, D. I. (2005).  Issues of 
linguistic typology in the study of sign language 
development of deaf children.  In B. Schick, M. 
Marschark, & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in 
the sign language development of deaf children 
(pp. 20-45).  Oxford University Press.
         Slobin, D. I. (2008).  Breaking the 
molds: Signed languages and the nature of human 
language.  Sign Language Studies, 8, 114-130.

At 03:01 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>Sarah,
>
>I believe you're confusing some of the 
>terminology. "Indicating verbs" refer to the 
>class of both "agreeing" and "spatial verbs". 
>"Depicting verbs" are just classifiers. 
>"Directional verbs", I believe, are the same 
>thing as agreeing verbs, but I would avoid that 
>term as it is vague and could be easily 
>misconstrued. The same thing with "inflecting". 
>Technically, both agreeing and spatial verbs 
>undergo some sort of inflection, though people 
>usually mean just agreeing verbs when they use 
>the term inflecting. "Agreeing verbs" inflect for subject and/or object.
>
>So, in your two examples, the lexical sign THROW 
>is a spatial verb, and therefore an indicating 
>verb. I do not think it is "directional" (i.e. 
>agreeing). For your cup example I'm not sure how 
>the sentence is intended to be signed. If your 
>using a classifier in a C handshape to show the 
>displacement of the cup, then that would be a 
>depicting verb. If, however, the sentence were 
>"CUP, aMOVEb" then MOVE again is a spatial verb.
>
>Is that clear?
>
>Jonathan Udoff
>SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative Disorders
>
>Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience
>6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200
>San Diego, CA 92120
><http://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu>http://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu
>Voice/VP: (619) 594-8067
>
>
>2009/3/26 Sarah Hafer <<mailto:charityh at comcast.net>charityh at comcast.net>
>I got a question about terminology used for 
>directional verbs, indicating verbs, inflecting 
>verbs, spatial verbs, and depicting verbs.
>
>To me, it appears that inflecting verbs and 
>indicating verbs are used to specifically denote 
>that these are not classifier predicates, which 
>would fall under the spatial/depicting verb 
>category. If that is so about indicating and 
>inflecting verbs, i suppose directional verbs 
>could apply to any type of verbs as long as they 
>are directional. Say, if i signed a cup is being 
>moved from point A to point B, that is both a 
>directional verb and a depicting/spatial verb. 
>Yet, if i signed that person A is throwing 
>something (not using a classifier here but the 
>THROW sign in ASL for general) to person B, that 
>is considered an indicating verb and also a directional verb.
>
>Am i getting the terminology use right here?
>
>--
>Sarah
>
>_______________________________________________
>SLLING-L mailing list
><mailto:SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>SLLING-L mailing list
>SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics

Department of Psychology        email: slobin at berkeley.edu
3210 Tolman #1650                 phone (Dept):  1-510-642-5292
University of California             phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650         fax: 1-510-642-5293
USA                                      http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20090326/361d6e66/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l