<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Dear SL-Lingers, <BR>
<BR>
This is indeed an interesting dilemma. I've seen these category labels applied to phenomena such as agreement, classifiers, inflectional morphology, and even at the most basic level of the phoneme/morpheme, something seems awry. <BR>
<BR>
But, because languages are constrained by general cognitive principles, (or as some believe, by a language faculty) we would expect that certain basic categories should be found in signed languages. <BR>
<BR>
Interestingly, the processes that create these categories (grammaticization, metaphor, automatization) do occur in signed languages. But, they might create a category that is specific to the signed modality. <BR>
<BR>
This question from Nicole got me thinking......... Has anyone suggested a new category that is exclusive to signed languages? It seems that there are few new category labels for what we know as classifiers -Depicting Verbs (Liddell) -Polycomponential Verbs (Slobin et al.). Any others?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>-------------------------------------------- <BR>
James MacFarlane<BR>
Department of Linguistics<BR>
Gallaudet University<BR>
800 Florida Ave, NE<BR>
Washington, DC 20002<BR>
james.macfarlane@gallaudet.edu<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<B>From: </B>"Dan I. Slobin" <slobin@socrates.Berkeley.EDU><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0700<BR>
<B>To: </B>"For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages." <SLLING-L@ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA><BR>
<B>Subject: </B>Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Dear Nicole Kuplenik<BR>
That's an important question--and, as you suggest--one that is influenced by power. In my opinion, classic linguistic terms cannot be uncritically applied to sign languages. I have serious doubts about the uses of notions such as subject, object, classifier, agreement, and others. But as for linguistic methods--these are precisely the methods that we need in order to determine the structure of sign languages. It's not the methods that are a problem, but the direct transfer of categories of analysis that have been established for (particular) written languages.<BR>
There's been a lot written about these issues--both taking the position that I've just summarized and taking the opposite position. Several recent books are especially relevant:<BR>
<BR>
Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003). <I>Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages</I>. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<BR>
Liddell, S. K. (2003). <I>Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language</I>. Cambridge University Press.<BR>
Taub, S. F. (2001). <I>Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language</I>. Cambridge University Press.<BR>
<BR>
If you send me your email address, I can send you some papers from our Sign Language Research Group at the University of California, Berkeley.<BR>
<BR>
Sincerely,<BR>
Dan Slobin<BR>
Professor of Psychology<BR>
University of California, Berkeley<BR>
<BR>
At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2">Dear SL-Ling-ists!<BR>
<BR>
The other day a debate occured in a certain linguistic environment (Sl and non-SL) on whether classic linguistic methods and terminology can be used in the field of SLs. :)<BR>
Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher v. lower academic rank) prevailed ... <BR>
<BR>
Could you please share your opinion on this matter? I would also like to know whether there are any materials on the subject of linguistic and SL-linguistic teminology.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks!<BR>
<BR>
Nicole Kuplenik<BR>
Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing <BR>
Slovenia<BR>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>