<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
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.)<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.”<br>
<br>
References are listed below. They are downloadable at
<a href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm">
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm</a> <br>
[click on <u>Slobin-Papers on sign language</u>]. <br>
<br>
Dan Slobin<br>
<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.), <i>Directions in sign
language acquisition </i>(pp. 55-75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>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.),<i> Advances in the sign language development
of deaf children </i>(pp. 20-45).<i> </i> Oxford University Press.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Slobin, D.
I. (2008). Breaking the molds: Signed languages and the nature of
human language. <i>Sign Language Studies, 8, </i>114-130<i>.<br>
</i> <br>
At 03:01 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Sarah,<br><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
Is that clear?<br><br>
Jonathan Udoff<br>
SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative
Disorders<br><br>
Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience<br>
6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200<br>
San Diego, CA 92120<br>
<a href="http://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu">http://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu</a><br>
Voice/VP: (619) 594-8067<br><br>
<br>
2009/3/26 Sarah Hafer
<<a href="mailto:charityh@comcast.net">charityh@comcast.net</a>><br>
<dl>
<dd>I got a question about terminology used for directional verbs,
indicating verbs, inflecting verbs, spatial verbs, and depicting
verbs.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>Am i getting the terminology use right here?<br><br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>Sarah <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>SLLING-L mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu">
SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l" eudora="autourl">
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l</a><br><br>
</dl><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
SLLING-L mailing list<br>
SLLING-L@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<br>
<a href="http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l" eudora="autourl">
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=1>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School<br>
Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics<br><br>
Department of Psychology email:
slobin@berkeley.edu<br>
3210 Tolman
#1650
phone (Dept): 1-510-642-5292<br>
University of
California
phone (home): 1-510-848-1769<br>
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650
fax: 1-510-642-5293<br>
USA
<a href="http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm<br>
</a>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>
<br>
</font></body>
</html>