Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?

[James MacFarlane]

Dear SL-Lingers,

   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.

   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.

   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.

   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?


--------------------------------------------
James MacFarlane
Department of Linguistics
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Ave, NE
Washington, DC 20002
james.macfarlane at gallaudet.edu


From: "Dan I. Slobin" <slobin at socrates.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:56:05 -0700
To: "For the discussion of linguistics and signed languages."
<SLLING-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA>
Subject: Re: Q: Classic terminology/methods? A: Why not?


Dear Nicole Kuplenik
       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.
       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:

       Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003).  Perspectives on classifier constructions
in sign languages.  Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
       Liddell, S. K. (2003).  Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American
Sign Language.  Cambridge University Press.
       Taub, S. F. (2001).  Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor
in American Sign Language.  Cambridge               University Press.

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.

Sincerely,
Dan Slobin
Professor of Psychology
University of California, Berkeley

At 12:05 PM 10/4/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Dear SL-Ling-ists!

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. :)
Rather frustrating, actually, since the power of power (e.g. higher v. lower
academic rank) prevailed ...

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.

Thanks!

Nicole Kuplenik
Ljubljana School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Slovenia




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20031006/53cfdff3/attachment.htm>