FW: Proforms vs. Classifiers

[Inge Zwitserlood]

To everybody who is interested in the references:

Supalla, Ted Roland 1982. Structure and Acquisition of Verbs of Motion and
Location in American Sign Language. Ph.D. Thesis, San Diego, UCSD

Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau (1998). 'On Classifying Classification as a
Class of Inflection in German Sign Language.' In: Cambier-Langeveld, T., A.
Lipták & M. Redford (Eds.) Proceedings of ConSole VI, pp. 59-74

Glück, Susanne, and Roland Pfau (1999). 'A Distributed Morphology Account
of Verbal Inflection in German Sign Language.' In: Cambier-Langeveld, T.,
A. Lipták, M. Redford & E.J. van der Torre (Eds.) Proceedings of ConSole
VII, pp. 65-80

Zwitserlood, Inge (2003) Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse
Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht,
University Utrecht (to be published within a couple of weeks)

Benedicto, Elena, and Diane Brentari (to appear) 'Where did All the
Arguments Go? Argument-Changing Properties of Classifiers in ASL'. To
appear in: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory


At 13:57 11-04-03 +0100, you wrote:
>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
>***********************************************************
>

***********************************************************
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
***********************************************************