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

Abstract

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.

Transitivity prominence within and across modalities

“…Tokens of multiple signs associated with the same meaning were therefore collapsed into a single group.⁷ Furthermore, we exclude so-called classifier predicates from our study to only focus on lexical signs. This choice is motivated by the variation found in the argument structure of these signs, although certain types of classifiers have been shown to be associated with particular argument structure alternations crosslinguistically (Benedicto and Brentari, 2004;De Lint, 2018;Kimmelman et al, 2019).⁸ Because of the different natures of the sign language corpora (Section 2.2), we do not find the same amount of tokens for all 25 ValPaL verb meanings in all languages. Kimmelman (2016) set the token threshold to 25 for RSL, but we find that following this same limit decreases the number of comparable verb meanings considerably across our sampled sign languages.…”

A descriptive grammar of Sign Language of the Netherlands

“…However, Kimmelman et al (2019) found in their NGT data that entity classifiers occasionally combine with an unergative verb, i.e., a verb which expresses an activity performed by an agent.…”

“…Second, there is a relationship between classifier type and argument structure: Entity classifiers only combine with intransitive classifier predicates, i.e., verbs that only require one argument (e.g. BE_LOCATED and MOVE, as in 'a book lies on the table' or 'a car moves') (Kimmelman et al 2019;de Lint 2018). Most commonly, these are unaccusative verbs, i.e., verbs in which the subject is not an agent, but rather undergoes the action described by the verb (e.g.…”

“…To be more precise, and applying thematic roles, an agent is moving a theme. Kimmelman et al (2019) found three additional types of event structure, and therefore analyze handling classifier predicates differently: according to them, these predicates actually involve two predicates, one for movement and one for holding. I refer the interested reader to their work.…”

“…The task consisted of the description of 32 randomized videos, in which actions were performed, which were designed to reflect 16 verbs in two different argument structure alternations. Kimmelman et al (2019) analyzed classifier constructions in four different sign languages, and focused on a specific data set from their corpora, namely the retellings of the Tweety and Sylvester's Canary Row series. For NGT, the dataset consisted of five complete retellings of the series, performed by 10 signers from the Amsterdam region.…”