Classifiers a morphosyntactic subsystem

The term morphosyntactic subsystem refers to morphological elements, which are

relevant for syntactic purposes. The examples of the different types of classifiers in

spoken languages are illustrative of this term, e.g. the use of numeral classifiers in

Japanese. This means these constructions form part of the grammar of Japanese and

cannot be left out of a sentence.

Schembri agrees that handshape units in sign language classifiers “form part of a

morphosyntactic system in signed languages” in relation to the lexicon (2003: 20). He

acknowledges that applying this criterion to sign languages is not clear cut. He claims

that class terms in spoken languages (Grinevald, 2000) is a more applicable category for

a comparison with classifier handshapes.

Grinevald explains class terms as follows: “[They] are lexical in the sense that they

operate on derivational or compounding morphology at word level" (2000: 58). They do

not have the same function of spoken language classifiers as described earlier, but they

/ lexicalised / grammaticised classifier handshapes in comparison to class term

morphemes in English such as ‘-berry’ and derivational morphemes such as ‘–er’

(manager) and ‘-ism’ (skepticism). In terms of sign languages, some classifiers become

part of the lexicon (i.e. they are no longer creative signs which are context-bound). In

this way they are similar to class terms.

The examples below in Figures 2-3 (a)-(c) are SASL examples of frozen classifiers:

MEETING (from the category entity classifiers), KEY / LOCK (from the category handling

classifiers) and RECEIPT (from the category SASS). Schembri points out that although the

class term comparison is more valid, classifiers in spoken language do not play a major

role in lexicogenesis. This conclusion seems to indicate that Grinevald’s

‘morphosyntactic subsystem’ is not really applicable to sign language classifiers.

a) MEETING b) KEY c) RECEIPT

In light of the above, the criterion of ‘morphosyntactic subsystem’ seems to be

irrelevant for sign languages. However, Schembri offers the potential solution by

pointing out that sign languages may display a unique morphosyntactic subsystem which

has no equal in spoken languages, “… unique in its fusion of linguistic and visuospatial

properties” (2003: 21).

Schwager and Zeshan state that “the morphology of (these) sign languages is largely

simultaneous rather than sequential, and involves modulations in signing space typical

of the sign language modality” (2008: 535). Although they do not discuss classifiers in

particular, they tabled a number of morphological criteria observed in three sign

languages they studied.

In this table, they identify “class agreement” as a grammatical category under “event

concept class” and the morphological process related to this as affixation. They explain

this as follows: “… the handshape representing the referent class, such as the human

and vehicle referents … is a bound morpheme that is combined with morphemes of

location and movement in an affixation process, whereby a complex multimorphemic

sign is created” (2008: 538-539).

The use of classifiers in sign languages does not constitute such a highly grammaticalised

system as, for example, in Japanese. They behave differently from spoken language

classifiers. However, in the context of sign languages, they do occur on a highly frequent

2.4.3. Classifiers - semantically motivated systems of classification that do

not classify all nouns

In relation to the third criterion, Schembri raises the question of what exactly is

classified by handshape units in sign languages. According to him, the general

understanding of spoken language classifiers is that “a classifier classifies in the sense

that it denotes some salient or perceived characteristic of the referent represented by

an associated noun” (2003: 21). This means that they are semantically motivated. This

seems to be the basis for part of Sutton-Spence and Woll’s criteria for sign language

classifiers mentioned earlier (1999), as well as Valli and Lucas’ definition (2000).

It is possible that the use of classifiers in sign languages does not actually fully conform

to the above characteristics. Engberg-Pedersen (1993: 246), uses the term

polymorphemic verbs for classifiers in sign languages and argues that although

polymorphemic verbs in Danish Sign Language distinguish between animate and

inanimate, the “sheer number of handshape units that can be used in polymorphemic

verbs of human beings is evidence that the handshape units have more than

classificatory meaning.” She also claims that the qualities of the referent are not the

only factors that determine the choice of handshape. Movement and handshape are

mutually interdependent, and for this reason, the argument that handshape units are

classifiers cannot be justified.

It would seem that not all sign language linguists agree on the point of classifiers

representing salient characteristics. For example, Aronoff et al. state that “entity

upright human, seated human, vehicle, and so on, also enter into complex constructions,

by combining with other classifiers (signed by the other hand) as well as with different

movement roots indicating path shapes and manners of movement” (2005: 23).

Zwitserlood et al. offer the following explanation of classifiers: “Classifier predicates are

morphologically complex predicates in which the classifier refers to a referent.

Referents are classified on the basis of salient characteristics like shape (classifiers for

long and thin entities, flat entities, and round and/or cylindrical entities are found in

almost all sign languages), animacy (some sign languages have special classifiers for

humans and animals or for men and women) or other characteristics” (2012: 1639).