Directional Verbs

Sat Mar 28 04:18:56 UTC 2009

Especially for teaching purposes, you compare something new to  
something you already know.  For most linguists, sign languages are  
new vis-à-vis spoken languages.  But when I was teaching linguistics  
to signers, I started with what they knew (ASL) and showed how spoken  
languages could be analyzed using the same or similar tools. Here's an  
example from my own student experience.  I was doing well in  
linguistics but struggling with a course on logic and couldn't "get"  
what the professor was trying to teach us.  A friend told me that what  
the prof was trying to get us to do was like writing a grammar of  
another language.  I immediately thought to myself "Gee, I can do  
that," and the problem was easily solved.  So my friend took what I  
knew (linguistics) and helped me use those tools to analyze a problem  
in logic.
Susan D. Fischer
Susan.Fischer at rit.edu
drword563 (Skype)
drword354 (iChat/AIM)

Center for Research on Language
UCSD

On Mar 27, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Patricia Raswant wrote:

> OK, Susan, if what you said is true, why don't they compare spoken
> languages to sign languages rather than vice versa?
>
> 2009/3/27 Fischer Susan <susan.fischer at rit.edu>:
>> Because they're languages.
>> Susan D. Fischer
>> Susan.Fischer at rit.edu
>> drword563 (Skype)
>> drword354 (iChat/AIM)
>> +1-714-908-9824 (fax)
>> Center for Research on Language
>> UCSD
>>
>>
>> On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:09 AM, Patricia Raswant wrote:
>>
>> I have a question.  Why do linguists compare ASL and other signed
>> languages to spoken languages?
>>
>> 2009/3/27 Dan I. Slobin <slobin at berkeley.edu>:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.”
>>
>> References are listed below.  They are downloadable at
>>
>> http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
>>
>> [click on Slobin-Papers on sign language].
>>
>> Dan Slobin
>>
>>         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.), Directions in sign language
>>
>> acquisition (pp. 55-75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
>>
>>         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.), Advances in the sign language development of  
>> deaf
>>
>> children (pp. 20-45). Oxford University Press.
>>
>>         Slobin, D. I. (2008).  Breaking the molds: Signed languages  
>> and the
>>
>> nature of human language.  Sign Language Studies, 8, 114-130.
>>
>> At 03:01 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> Sarah,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Is that clear?
>>
>> Jonathan Udoff
>>
>> SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Language and Communicative  
>> Disorders
>>
>> Laboratory for Language and Cognitive Neuroscience
>>
>> 6495 Alvarado Road, Suite 200
>>
>> San Diego, CA 92120
>>
>> http://emmoreylab.sdsu.edu
>>
>> Voice/VP: (619) 594-8067
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/26 Sarah Hafer <charityh at comcast.net>
>>
>> I got a question about terminology used for directional verbs,  
>> indicating
>>
>> verbs, inflecting verbs, spatial verbs, and depicting verbs.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Am i getting the terminology use right here?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> SLLING-L mailing list
>>
>> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> SLLING-L mailing list
>>
>> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>
>>
>> Dan I. Slobin, Professor of the Graduate School
>>
>> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
>>
>> Department of Psychology        email: slobin at berkeley.edu
>>
>> 3210 Tolman #1650                 phone (Dept):  1-510-642-5292
>>
>> University of California             phone (home): 1-510-848-1769
>>
>> Berkeley, CA 94720-1650         fax: 1-510-642-5293
>>
>> USA                                      http://ihd.berkeley.edu/Slobin.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> SLLING-L mailing list
>>
>> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLLING-L mailing list
>> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SLLING-L mailing list
>> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLLING-L mailing list
> SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20090327/7c28f923/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
SLLING-L mailing list
SLLING-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/slling-l