Somatismos con el lexema “dedo”

According to Slobin et al. (2001: 69-70) a semantic representation approach minimises

the influence of gloss on transcription and analysis. In order to highlight this point, I will

explain the problem related to glossing, especially in relation to classifiers and their

meaning components and illustrate - with examples - how the BTS can minimise it.

A particular problem faced by sign language researchers is that glossing poses the

language under investigation. In the context of this particular study, even though the

concept classes Property, Event and Entity roughly correspond to the traditional spoken

language word classes of ‘adjective’, ‘verb’ and ‘noun’, I wanted to avoid the direct

transfer of spoken language word classes in English to classifiers in SASL.

Frishberg et al. (2012: 1057) state that “any gloss carries the part-of-speech membership

of a spoken language word, suggesting that the sign in question belongs to the same

category.” The semantic representation approach can avoid this problem by focusing on

meaning rather than form. They further point out that the majority of verbs in sign

languages are polycomponential, and often nouns, too. For these signs there is no single

word in the glossing language which can represent all the levels of meaning. This applies

in particular to classifiers, as is evident in Chapter 2. Figure 3-2 below (CL-14) does not

simply mean ‘jump’ but is layered with meaningful components. The full meaning is as

follows: An animate being with two bent legs jump onto a round, container-like object.

In the context of the data elicitation clip, this example would be glossed as BIRD-JUMP-

ON-EDGE-OF-NEST.

According to Slobin et al., the BTS treats classifiers as property markers: “… handshapes

that identify a referent by indicating a relevant property of that referent” (2001: 69).

Figures 3-3(a)-(d) below (adapted from Hoiting & Slobin, 2002: 6-7) illustrate, by using a

classifier which can traditionally be glossed as COWBOY-MOUNT-HOURSE, how the BTS

can make provision for the various meaning components of classifiers and also prevent

the transfer of word classes from the glossing language to sign languages. This particular

example clearly illustrates the relevance of the two objectives of the BTS mentioned in

the introductory part of this section.

Note that this example is a figure and ground construction and therefore contains two

different classifiers and two different referents. Both classifiers are traditional entity

classifiers, where the hands physically represent a part of each referent, in this case the

cowboy’s legs and the horse’s back. Figure 3-3(a) presents the gloss, the full English

sentence and the BTS transcription. Figure 3-3(b) gives a breakdown of Figure 3-3(a) and

is also explained verbally. Figures 3-3(c) and (d) illustrate the relevant property markers

from the BTS manual (i.e. classifier handshapes). In Figure 3-3(e) an SASL signer

illustrates the sign.

b)

c) d) e)

PL_VL: Plane showing vertical length (fingertips forward)

TL: Two-Legged animate being TWO-LEGGED-ANIMATE BEING- STRADDLES A VERTICAL PLANE

FIGURE 3-3(A)-(E) BTS PROPERTY MARKERS

The first row of Figure 3-3(b) is the full BTS transcription for this sign. The English word

‘mount’ in parenthesis does not have any transcription significance – it is added merely

to facilitate an understanding of the transcription that follows in the same line. There

are four meaning components in this example, as can be seen in the four blocks in the

components. As one can see, the example contains the two property markers illustrated

in Figures 3-3(c) – (d) - pm’PL_VL and pm’TL.

The first property marker – pm’PL_VL – reflects a plane showing vertical height. This is a

property of the referent – which without discourse context could mean a fence or an

animal such as a horse or a big dog. The second property marker - pm’TL - shows that a

property of the referent is that she, he or ‘it’ (i.e. an animal) has two legs. Again, this

property of the referent could lend itself to numerous meanings – a child, a man, a

ghost, and animal or even an alien.

In terms of the two remaining meaning components, the third component in Figure 3-

3(b) provides information about the direction of the movement as well as the location (-

gol’ PL_VL_TOP) of the property marker pm’TL in relation to the property marker pm’PL_VL. I.e., it provides information about locative relations. The fourth meaning component provides information about the posture of the pm’TL.

Furthermore, by using the name pm’TL as opposed to V-CL (the inverted form of the V-

handshape) the focus remains on a property of the referent (i.e. meaning) rather than

becoming a transcription based on the phonological feature of ‘handshape’ (i.e. form –

V-handshape). Slobin et al. (2003: 273) state that “rather than emphasize classification

as the central feature of “classifier” handshapes in polycomponential signs, it seems

more useful to treat them as marking a relevant property of a referent. The major

The BTS transcription in Figure 3-3(b) above – (mount)-pm’PL_VL –pm’TL-

gol’PL_VL_TOP-pos’STR – is a semantically appropriate transcription. In a descriptive

study of formational features of classifiers in SASL, presumably the focus would have to

be on form. However, in this particular study – given the fact that classifiers are

polycomponential signs – the semantic approach is essential as well.