Sign Language & Linguistics - Volume 3, Issue 2, 2000

It is argued that signed communication systems differ from spoken ones in having not one but two structured systems of representation. In addition to the linguistic mode (which is shared with spoken communication, and which appears to be fundamentally identical across spoken and signed modalities), signers also command distinctive, formal systems of schematic visual representation. These are the forms of signing known as classifier predicates. For the past two decades, signed classifier predicates have been modeled as linguistic. However, the basic formal units of such signing, the combination of these units, and their breakdown, all differ both from patterns seen in other signed forms that have long been recognized as linguistic, and from the classic patterns of language in general. Classifier predicates continue to be modeled as linguistic mostly on the basis of assumptions about alternatives, specifically about the form and acquisition of systems of visual-spatial representation. These assumptions are shown to be incorrect. Signed classifiers are shown to correspond in many respects not merely to visual representation, but to a particular strategy of depiction known as schematic visual representation. This is the mode of depiction that appears to be most natural for both children and adults to master, and that is commonly seen in drawing. There is thus strong evidence that in signed language classifiers we have what, from the point of view of traditional (spoken-language based) linguistics, is a qualitatively new communication mode: formal, structured systems of visual representation that exist side-by-side with linguistic modalities, within the total signed communication system.

A model of signed language classifier predicates is presented in which these forms are held to be a mode, not of linguistic, but of visual representation. This representation is largely schematic, combining discrete parts drawn from a finite set. Some of these parts or ‘templates’ may be truly digital or undeformable in nature, but some are argued to contain ‘elastic’ parameters, allowing for the conventional use of analogue or free-form representation. The model of classifier predicates as templated visual representation thus accommodates their discrete-combinatorial structure (previously interpreted as evidence of their linguistic nature), and also accounts for the mix of fixed and nonfinite elements in them, thus solving formal problems which arise in a strictly linguistic approach. Some implications of this model include issues regarding multimodality in signed communication systems, the relationships between CPs, ‘frozen’ sign and iconic gesture, the integration of visual and abstract modes of representation, and metaphor. It is concluded that the TVR model may provide a useful new perspective on the design of representational systems in the human mind.

Productive signs in Swedish Sign Language come in many kinds. This paper concentrates on two groups. The first group describes entities in motion, expressing location and movement, like ‘a bird is sitting on a telephone line’ or ‘the boy jumps off a ledge’. I call these signs polysynthetic. The second group describes the size and shape of entities, like ‘a piece of A4 sized paper’. I call these signs size and shape specifying. In polysynthetic signs, which denote entities in movement situations, the manual articulation of the movement denotes the motion itself (e.g. movement or location) and the handshape denotes the entity as a classifier. This paper argues that there are two main types of classifiers used in polysynthetic signs to denote motion situations: agentive and non-agentive. In contrast to polysynthetic signs, in signs that specify size and shape of an object, the manual articulation (movement) denotes the extent of the largest dimension of the entity whereas the handshape denotes the extent of the smallest dimension of the entity being described. This description of classifiers, particularly agentive classifiers, in Swedish Sign Language polysynthetic signs differs from those offered for other sign languages because it is based on the salient properties of the part of the entity that is to be handled. Other descriptions are based on the entity’s appearance. Another difference is that I offer my own description of the dimensionality of entities (inspired by Bierwisch 1967). I will show how a handshape with different orientation denotes different dimensions. I will demonstrate that the agentive classifier handshapes in polysynthetic signs and the handshapes in size and shape specifying signs are chosen according to the same dimensions.