Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

CiteScore 2018: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.544

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Argument Structure of Classifier Predicates: Canonical and Non-canonical Mappings in Four Sign Languages

Vadim Kimmelman / Vanja de Lint / Connie de Vos / Marloes Oomen / Roland Pfau / Lianne Vink / Enoch O. Aboh
Published Online: 2019-08-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0018


We analyze argument structure of whole-entity and handling classifier predicates in four sign languages (Russian Sign Language, Sign Language of the Netherlands, German Sign Language, and Kata Kolok) using parallel datasets (retellings of the Canary Row cartoons). We find that all four languages display a systematic, or canonical, mapping between classifier type and argument structure, as previously established for several sign languages: whole-entity classifier predicates are mostly used intransitively, while handling classifier predicates are used transitively. However, our data sets also reveal several non-canonical mappings which we address in turn. First, it appears that whole-entity classifier predicates can be used unergatively, rather than unaccusatively, contrary to expectations. Second, our data contain some transitive uses of whole-entity classifier predicates. Finally, we find that handling classifier predicates can express various complex event structures. We discuss what these findings imply for existing theories of classifier predicates in sign languages.

Keywords: Argument structure; Event structure; Classifier predicates; Handling classifiers; Whole-entity classifiers


  • Acartürk, Cengiz. 2005. Gradient Characteristics of the Unaccusative/Unergative Distinction in Turkish: an Experimental Investigation. Ankara: The Middle East Technical University MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bickford, J. Albert. 2005. The Signed Languages of Eastern Europe. SIL International.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. In Elena Benedicto & Jeff Runner (eds.), Functional Projections, 19-47. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 1998. Deriving passives without theta-grids. In Steven Lapointe, Diane Brentari & Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 60-99. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane & Marie Coppola. 2013. What sign language creation teaches us about language: Sign Language Creation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(2). 201–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1212Crossref

  • Burkova, Svetlana. 2015. Russian Sign Language Corpus. http://rsl.nstu.ru/ (1 April, 2018).

  • Casey, Shannon & Karen Emmorey. 2009. Co-speech gesture in bimodal bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 290–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960801916188Crossref

  • Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood & Johan Ros. 2008. Corpus NGT. An open access digital corpus of movies with annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. http://www.ru.nl/corpusngtuk/introduction/welcome/.

  • De Lint, Vanja. 2010. Argument Structure in Classifier Constructions in American Sign Language (ASL): an experimental approach. Utrecht: Utrecht University MA thesis.Google Scholar

  • De Lint, Vanja. 2018. NGT classifier constructions: an inventory of arguments. Sign Language & Linguistics 21(1). 3–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vos, Connie. 2012. Sign-spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language of Bali Inscribes Its Signing space. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • De Vos, Connie. 2016. Sampling shared sign languages. Sign Language Studies 16(2). 204–226. doi:10.1353/sls.2016.0002.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Vos, Connie & Roland Pfau. 2015. Sign language typology: The contribution of rural sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 265–288. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124958.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument structure. Language 67. 547–619.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen. 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ferrara, Lindsay. 2012. The Grammar of Depiction: Exploring Gesture and Language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Freleng, Friz. 1950. Canary Row. Animated Cartoon. Time Warner, New York.Google Scholar

  • Glück, Susanne & Roland Pfau. 1998. On classifying classification as a class of inflection in German Sign Language. In Tina Cambier-Langeveld, Anikó Lipták & Michael Redford (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, 59–74. Leiden: SOLE.Google Scholar

  • Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117. 1258–1284.Google Scholar

  • Hanke, Thomas, Sung-Eun Hong, Susanne König, Gabriele Langer, Rie Nishio & Christian Rathmann. 2010. Designing elicitation stimuli and tasks for the DGS Corpus Project. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference (TISLR 10), Sept 30–Oct 2, 2010, Purdue University, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar

  • Hinnant, John T. 2000. Adaptation to deafness in a Balinese community. In Charles I. Berlin & Bronya J. B. Keats (eds.), Genetics and Hearing Loss, 111–123. San Diego : Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar

  • Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kegl, Judy. 1990. Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL Lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues, 149–175. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kimmelman, Vadim, Roland Pfau & Enoch O. Aboh. 2019. Argument structure of classifier predicates in Russian Sign. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (online first, 3 April 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09448-9).Crossref

  • Kimmelman, Vadim. 2018. Impersonal reference in Russian Sign Language (RSL). Sign Language & Linguistics 21(2). 204–231.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2007. The argument structure of classifier predicates in American Sign Language. In Amy Rose (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meeting on Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

  • Marsaja, I Gede. 2008. Desa Kolok: A Deaf Village and Its Sign Language in Bali, Indonesia. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar

  • Pavlič, Matic. 2016. The Word Order Parameter in Slovenian Sign Language: Transitive, Ditransitive, Classifier and Locative constructions. Venice: Università Ca’Foscari PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

  • Perniss, Pamela. 2007. Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: The use of classifiers and perspective. Lingua 117. 1315–1338.Google Scholar

  • Perniss, Pamela. 2012. Use of sign space. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 412–431. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Perniss, Pamela & Aslı Özyürek. 2008. Representations of action, motion, and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) Sign Language narratives. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR, 353–378. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar

  • Rietveld-van Wingerden, Marjoke. 2003. Educating the deaf in The Netherlands: a methodological controversy in historical perspective. History of Education 32(4). 401–416. doi:10.1080/00467600304146.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosen, Carol. 1984. The interface between semantic roles and initial grammatical relations. In David Perlmutter & Carol Rosen (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 38–77. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schembri, Adam C. 2003. Rethinking “classifiers” in sign languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–890.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Colette Craig (ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Van Hout, Angeliek. 1996. Event Semantics of Verb Frame Alternations: A Case Study of Dutch and Its Acquisition. Tilburg: Tilburg University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–260.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vink, Lianne. 2017. Classifiers en Argumentstructuur in Kata Kolok. Een Corpus-gebaseerd Onderzoek. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, BA thesis.Google Scholar

  • Wheatley, Mark & Annika Pabsch. 2012. Sign Language Legislation in the European Union. 2nd ed. Brussels: European Union of the Deaf.Google Scholar

  • Winata, Sunaryana, I. Nyoman Arhya, Sukarti Moeljopawiro, John T. Hinnant, Yong Liang, Thomas B. Friedman & James H. Asher. 1995. Congenital non-syndromal autosomal recessive deafness in Bengkala, an isolated Balinese village. Journal of Medical Genetics 32. 336–343.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zeshan, Ulrike. 2003. ‘Classificatory’ constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language: Grammaticalization and lexicalization processes. In Emmorey, Karen (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, 113–141. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Zeshan, Ulrike. 2008. Roots, leaves and branches – The typology of sign languages. In Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), Sign Languages: Spinning and Unraveling the Past, Present and Future, 671–695. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul.Google Scholar

  • Zwitserlood, Inge. 2003. Classifying Hand Configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Utrecht: Utrecht University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Zwitserlood, Inge. 2012. Classifiers. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign Language. An International Handbook, 158–186. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-05-31

Accepted: 2019-04-26

Published Online: 2019-08-08

Published in Print: 2019-01-01

Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 332–353, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2019-0018.

Export Citation

© 2019 Vadim Kimmelman et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in