Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands
Classifier predicates, also known as depictive verbs, are complex signs used to describe motion or localization events in sign languages. Every component of the classifier predicate bears its own meaning: the handshape refers to the semantic class of the referent (e.g., human, car, a round object, e...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
De Gruyter
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Open Linguistics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2025-0047 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849394170512277504 |
|---|---|
| author | Kimmelman Vadim Khristoforova Evgeniia |
| author_facet | Kimmelman Vadim Khristoforova Evgeniia |
| author_sort | Kimmelman Vadim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Classifier predicates, also known as depictive verbs, are complex signs used to describe motion or localization events in sign languages. Every component of the classifier predicate bears its own meaning: the handshape refers to the semantic class of the referent (e.g., human, car, a round object, etc.), while the trajectory of the motion, its manner and the localization of the sign iconically represent the described event. In this exploratory study, we compare the factors influencing the choice between classifier 1- and 2-handshapes for anthropomorphic referents in two sign languages – Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), by comparing data from two parallel subcorpora of cartoon retellings. The findings of this research reveal that both languages use both classifiers for human(-like) referents but the proportion of the use of 1-handshape and 2-handshape is different. Additionally, we identified various morphological, syntactic, and semantic factors that might influence the choice between the two handshapes. Some of these factors have a similar effect in both sign languages, and others influence the choice between the handshapes in the two sign languages in different, often contrasting ways. This observation highlights the linguistic status of whole-entity classifier handshapes for anthropomorphic referents despite the high level of iconicity of classifier constructions. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-3a7ce93e2563462bbe7d3609feb89acc |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2300-9969 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-03-01 |
| publisher | De Gruyter |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Open Linguistics |
| spelling | doaj-art-3a7ce93e2563462bbe7d3609feb89acc2025-08-20T03:40:06ZengDe GruyterOpen Linguistics2300-99692025-03-0111128531110.1515/opli-2025-0047Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the NetherlandsKimmelman Vadim0Khristoforova Evgeniia1Department of Linguistic, Literary and Aesthetic Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, NorwayAmsterdam Centre for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsClassifier predicates, also known as depictive verbs, are complex signs used to describe motion or localization events in sign languages. Every component of the classifier predicate bears its own meaning: the handshape refers to the semantic class of the referent (e.g., human, car, a round object, etc.), while the trajectory of the motion, its manner and the localization of the sign iconically represent the described event. In this exploratory study, we compare the factors influencing the choice between classifier 1- and 2-handshapes for anthropomorphic referents in two sign languages – Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT), by comparing data from two parallel subcorpora of cartoon retellings. The findings of this research reveal that both languages use both classifiers for human(-like) referents but the proportion of the use of 1-handshape and 2-handshape is different. Additionally, we identified various morphological, syntactic, and semantic factors that might influence the choice between the two handshapes. Some of these factors have a similar effect in both sign languages, and others influence the choice between the handshapes in the two sign languages in different, often contrasting ways. This observation highlights the linguistic status of whole-entity classifier handshapes for anthropomorphic referents despite the high level of iconicity of classifier constructions.https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2025-0047classifier handshapecorpus-based analysisrussian sign languagesign language of the netherlands |
| spellingShingle | Kimmelman Vadim Khristoforova Evgeniia Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands Open Linguistics classifier handshape corpus-based analysis russian sign language sign language of the netherlands |
| title | Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands |
| title_full | Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands |
| title_fullStr | Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands |
| title_full_unstemmed | Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands |
| title_short | Classifier handshape choice in Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands |
| title_sort | classifier handshape choice in russian sign language and sign language of the netherlands |
| topic | classifier handshape corpus-based analysis russian sign language sign language of the netherlands |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2025-0047 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kimmelmanvadim classifierhandshapechoiceinrussiansignlanguageandsignlanguageofthenetherlands AT khristoforovaevgeniia classifierhandshapechoiceinrussiansignlanguageandsignlanguageofthenetherlands |