FW: Proforms vs. Classifiers

[Lorraine Leeson]

Inge;

Just wondering if you could list the references mentioned in your
response? Sorry for giving you extra work to do!!

Many thanks

Lorraine

Dr. Lorraine Leeson
Director
Centre for Deaf Studies
83 Waterloo Lane
Ballsbridge
Dublin 4
Ireland

Email: leesonl at tcd.ie


-----Original Message-----
From: For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages.
[mailto:SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA] On Behalf Of Inge Zwitserlood
Sent: 11 April 2003 09:52
To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
Subject: Re: FW: Proforms vs. Classifiers

I'd like to add to Adam's and Dan's responses that classifiers in signed
languages differ from proforms because classifiers are morphemes that
are
bound to verbs of motion and location, while proforms generally are free
morphemes. For this reason, these classifiers are considered as
agreement
markers by some researches, for instance Supalla (1982), Glueck & Pfau
(1998, 1999), Benedicto & Brentari (to appear) and myself (Zwitserlood
2003).
Best,
Inge Zwitserlood

>However, there is another usage that may not be found in many
dictionaries
>of linguistics, and may not be widely known in North America. In the
>European tradition of sign language research, a number of researchers
used
>the term 'proform' (and some still do) to refer to a subset of
'classifier'
>handshapes- specifically those that substitute for referents in
'classifier'
>verbs of motion and location. This terminology has gained some
acceptance in
>Europe, and is used, for example, by sign language instructors in their
>teaching at the University of Bristol. You can find an example of this
usage
>in 'The linguistics of British Sign Language' by Sutton-Spence & Woll
>(1999).
>
>Adam
>
>Adam Schembri, PhD
>Postdoctoral Research Fellow
>Renwick College
>University of Newcastle/
>Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children
>Private Bag 29
>Parramatta NSW 2124
>AUSTRALIA
>Tel (voice/TTY): +(61 2) 9872 0281
>Fax: (+61 2) 9873 1614
>Email: adam.schembri at ridbc.org.au
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Parvaz [mailto:dparvaz at UNM.EDU]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2003 12:47 AM
>> To: SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
>> Subject: Proforms vs. Classifiers
>>
>> > As I'm not a linguist (yet), please forgive me for this question if
the
>> > answer is evident for everybody on this list: what is the real
ifference
>> > between the terms proform and classifier?
>>
>> (Dredging up forgotten syntax lessons...)
>>
>> As far as I recall, proforms can replace phrasal level stuff; in the
>> quoted sentence above, "the terms proform and classifier" can be
replaced
>> with "them." It's one of the tests for constituency, and one of the
>> reasons for positing phrasal constituents like N' and V' (much of the
rest
>> of the X-bar madness having something to do with "theoretical
elegance"
>> :-)
>>
>> Classifiers, at the broadest level, are words that stand for semantic
>> classes of objects, so the "3" classifier (thumb, index, and middle
>> fingers extended) in ASL represents vehicles, Japanese "hon" has
something
>> to do with measure (although it's more complicated than that), and so
on.
>> Different languages use classifiers in different morphosyntactic
>> environments, and Colette Grinevald (at one point, Craig) has created
a
>> typology of classifiers based on those environments.
>>
>> I guess there is a commonality: proforms stand for syntactic
entities, and
>> classifiers for semantic categories.
>>
>> I welcome any refinements to this really sketchy beginning.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dan.
>

***********************************************************
Inge Zwitserlood, UiL OTS
Trans 10                                     Fort Orthenlaan 13
3512 JK  UTRECHT                 5231 PZ 's-HERTOGENBOSCH
030 - 253 83 13                        073 - 642 40 43
inge.zwitserlood at let.uu.nl     izjo at knoware.nl
***********************************************************