Morphology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 545–579 | Cite as

A classification of compounds in American Sign Language: an evaluation of the Bisetto and Scalise framework

Original Paper

Abstract

Cross-linguistic comparisons of compounds are difficult because of the varied criteria and terms used by different linguists (Scalise and Bisetto 2009). To address this problem, Scalise and Bisetto proposed a universal three-level classification of compound types. Although several researchers have shown that American Sign Language (ASL) has compound signs, a classification of compound types in ASL has not been completed. All of the potential compounds in an ASL dictionary (Costello 1994) were identified, then verified as compounds with the help of a fluent deaf signer by applying standard tests for composition. These compounds were then classified using the Scalise and Bisetto classification. We found that Scalise and Bisetto’s three-level hierarchical classification successfully captured cross-category relationships among subtypes of compounds but fails to predict the existence of one type of compound attested in ASL. In our revised classification, a consistent set of criteria is used at each level, resulting in a classification that is both conceptually simpler and empirically more adequate. The second tier category for hierarchical compounds are bifurcated into the categories expressed predicate and unexpressed predicate, according to whether each predicate in a compound’s semantic structure is expressed by one of the overt constituents. The revision has the further advantage of allowing us to avoid any reference to word class/grammatical category in applying our taxonomy, a goal that we show to be desirable on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

Keywords

Compounding Composition Signed languages ASL Classification Taxonomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ann, J. (2001). Bilingualism and language contact. In C. Lucas (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages (pp. 33–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcodia, G. F., Grandi, N., & Wälchli, B. (2010). Coordination in compounding. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 177–198). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  3. Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W. (2003). Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages (pp. 53–84). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  4. Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 301–344. Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. C., & Fasola, C. A. (2009). Araucanian: Mapudungun. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 594–608). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Battison, R. (2000). Analyzing signs. In C. Valli & C. Lucas (Eds.), Linguistics of American Sign Language: an introduction (pp. 231–242). Washington: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, L. (2001). Compounding. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  8. Bauer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology (2nd ed.). Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Bauer, L. (2009). Typology of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 343–356). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  10. Bauer, L. (2010). The typology of exocentric compounds. In S. Scalise & I. Vogel (Eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding (pp. 167–175). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  11. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  12. Booij, G. (2005). The grammar of words. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Ceccagno, A., & Basciano, B. (2007). Compound headedness in Chinese: an analysis of neologisms. Morphology, 207–231. Google Scholar
  14. Costello, E. (1994). Random House American Sign Language dictionary. New York: Random House. Google Scholar
  15. Don, J. (2009). IE. Germanic: Dutch. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 370–385). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Emmorey, K. (2002). Language, cognition, and the brain: insights from sign language research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  17. Emmorey, K. (Ed.) (2003). Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  18. Fabb, N. (2001). Compounding. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 66–83). Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Google Scholar
  19. Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grandi, N. (2009). When morphology “feeds” syntax: remarks on noun > adjective conversion in Italian appositive compounds. In F. Montermini, G. Boye, & J. Tseng (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Decembrettes, Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  21. Grinevald, C. (2003). Classifier systemes in the context of a typology of nominal classification. In K. Emmorey (Ed.), Perspectives in classifier constructions in signed languages (pp. 87–109). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  22. Guevara, E., & Scalise, S. (2009). Searching for universals in compounding. In S. M. Scalise & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 101–128). Amsterdam: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 129–144). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Haugen, E. (1950). The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 210–231. Google Scholar
  25. Inkelas, S., & Zoll, C. (2005). Reduplication: doubling in morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isenhath, J. O. (1990). The linguistics of American Sign Language. Jefferson: McFarland & Company. Google Scholar
  27. Kastovsky, D. (2009). Diachronic perspectives. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 323–342). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Kornfeld, L. M. (2009). IE, Romance: Spanish. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 436–452). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Lieber, R. (2009). IE, Germanic: English. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 357–369). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  31. Liddell, S. K. (1984). Think and Believe: sequentiality in American Sign Language signs. Language, 372–399. Google Scholar
  32. Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural language and linguistic theory, 445–513. Google Scholar
  33. Liddell, S. K., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 197–277. Google Scholar
  34. Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Valli, C., Rose, M., & Wulf, A. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation. In C. Lucas (Ed.) The sociolinguistics of sign language (pp. 61–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lucas, C., & Valli, C. (1992). Language contact in the American Deaf community. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  36. Marantz, A. (1982). ReReduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 435–482. Google Scholar
  37. Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach (2nd ed.). Munich: Beck. Google Scholar
  38. McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics: Vol. 18. Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Students Association (GLSA). Google Scholar
  39. Meir, I. (2002). A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(2), 413–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 847–894. Google Scholar
  41. Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Behan, B., & Lee, R. G. (2000). The syntax of American Sign Language. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
  42. Padden, C. A. (1990). The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In C. Lucas (Ed.), Sign language research: theoretical issues (pp. 118–132). Washington: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar
  43. Pettigrew, W. (1918). In Tangkhul Naga grammar and dictionary (Ukhrul dialect). Shillong: Assam Secretariat Printing Office. Google Scholar
  44. Rice, K. (2009). Athapaskan: Slave. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 542–563). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  45. Rosenberg, M. (2007). Classification, headedness and pluralization: corpus evidence from French compounds. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 341–360. Google Scholar
  46. Sandler, W. (1987). Assimilation and feature hierarchy of American sign language. In A. Bosch, B. Need, & E. Schiller (Eds.), Chicago linguistics society parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology (pp. 266–278). Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
  47. Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity. In American sign language, Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar
  48. Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scalise, S., & Bisetto, A. (2009). The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 34–53). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  50. Sexton, A. L. (1999). Grammaticalization in American sign language. Language Sciences, 105–141. Google Scholar
  51. Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. In Studies in linguistics: occasional papers. Buffalo: University of Buffalo. Google Scholar
  52. Supalla, T., & Newport, E. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American sign language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  53. Valli, C., & Lucas, C. (2000). Linguistics of American Sign Language. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. Google Scholar
  54. Wälchli, B. (2005). Co-compounds and natural coordination. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilbur, R. B. (1987). American sign language and sign systems. Baltimore: University Park Press. Google Scholar
  56. Xiong, L., Xiong, W. J., & Xiong, N. (1992). English-Mong-English dictionary. Milwaukee: Xiong Partnership Publications. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations