THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE

TED SUP ALLA

Department of Psychology
University of Illinois at Champaign-Orb ana

1. Overview
This chapter describes how native users of American Sign Language
(ASL), a visual-manual language of the deaf in the United States, use hands
and body as articulators to mark noun classifiers in ASL verbs of motion
and location. The chapter describes in some detail both the physical
articulators and the shapes they adopt fornoun classification (i.e., the phonol­
ogy of ASL classifiers), and the morphological organization of these clas­
sifiers.
The main point of this review is to show that the classifier system in
ASL is strikingly similar to classifier systems in spoken languages; and, more­
over, that this is true despite the potential in ASL for a rather different type
of organization. As will be discussed below, a language in the visual-manual
mode obviously has a very different set of resources at its disposal, from
which to build a morphology, than does an auditory-vocal language. The
objective of this chapter is to show how a visual-manual language organizes
these rather different resources for classifying nouns, and yet still shares the
same types and linguistic functions of noun classification found in spoken
languages.

1.1. Verbs of motion and location in ASL.

In spoken languages, words are composed of sets of discretely different
morphemes. However, within certain domains and especially for verbs of
motion and location, it has been in dispute whether this is also true for ASL.
Some investigators have claimed that ASL verbs of motion are constructed
by continuously varying the parameters of sign movement, in an analogue
fashion, to represent the indefinite and continuously varying motion of
182 TED SUPPALLA

objects in the real world. In contrast to this claim, Siipalla (1982, in press)
and Newport (1981, 1982) have demonstrated on the basis of both linguistic
analysis and psycholinguistic data that ASL verbs of motion, like words of
spoken language, are composed of combinations of discrete morphemes;
and that the morphological parameters and grammatically possible values
along these parameters are like those found in spoken languages of the world.
ASL and spoken languages do differ, however, in two ways: in ASL, but
not in spoken languages, each of the morphemes is sometimes transparently
(or translucently) related to its meaning; and the morphemes tend to combine
simultaneously, rather than sequentially. These latter two characteristics give
some ASL verbs the appearance, though not the actual structure, of an
analogue representation of real-world objects and motions.
These and related linguistic analyses (Frishberg, 1975; Kegl & Wilbur,
1976 ; Supalla, 1978) have revealed that ASL verbs of motion include classifier
morphemes: that is, morphemes that vary in form as a function of certain
categorical properties of the associated noun. For example, the handshapes
of ASL verbs may vary as a function of whether the associated noun is a
two֊ vs. four-legged object; or they may vary as a function of whether the
associated noun is long and thin vs. broad and flat. See particularly, Supalla
(1982, in press) for evidence that these morphemes are indeed classifiers
(and not, for example, depictions of objects).
In the present chapter, I will present the range of classifier categories
found thus far in ASL. These categories will be taken primarily from my
own work (most especially, Supalla, 1978, 1982, & in press), although there
is some additional work on ASL classifier morphemes which I will cite. My
claim here is that, despite the apparent iconicity of classifier morphemes in ASL,
and despite the fact that these morphemes could therefore potentially depict
an infinite number of distinct real-world objects, ASL has developed only
those types of classification that are found in spoken languages of the world.
Throughout the chapter I will note similarities between the two kinds of
languages in types of classification and in the particular categories found
within each type. These similarities suggest rather strongly that the recurrent
categories of classification found in spoken languages as well as signed lan­
guages are not due to any particular restrictions of the auditory-vocal mode,
or to the limited resources available within this mode for morphological
distinctions.
Before beginning this presentation, I will first sketch the overall
structure of the ASL verb of motion.
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 183

1.2. The structure of verbs of motion in ASL.

Like other signs of ASL, verbs of motion are formed by movements of
the signer's hand(s) or other body parts through the space in front of him.
In verbs of motion and location, however, each of the basic phonological
(that is, formational) parameters of the sign is itself a morpheme. The follow­
ing sketch is summarized from the linguistic analysis presented in Suppalla
(1982, in press):
The root of the ASL verb of motion or location consists of one of a
small number of possible movements, referring to the underlying predicate
type (existence, location, or motion) of the noun and, for verbs of motion,
one of a small number of possible movements paths (e.g., linear, arc, or
circle). Obligatorily affixed to the movement stem is a set of articulator mor­
phemes, consisting of a hand or other body part, formed into a particular
shape and located in a particular place and orientation along the movement
path. The handshape is typically the classifier morpheme of the verb of
motion or location (i.e., it marks the classification of the noun as, for exam­
ple, legged vs. non-legged). The relative locations of the hand and body
articulators mark the locative relationships among the central noun (the
moving object) and any secondary nouns (the ground objects). Figure 1
presents an example sequence of verbs of motion and location in ASL. Table
1 presents the appropriate English equivalents for the verbs of Figure 1.
The above describes what I have called "novel," or morphologically
complex, verbs of motion in ASL. However, the system may become "fro­
zen," with internal morphological analysis no longer performed. ASL has a
morphological continuum within the set of verbs of motion and location,
ranging from novel forms to frozen forms (Supalla, 1978). The native signer
can combine morphemes to produce novel verbs; however, some of these
verbs may be used so often that they become frozen, with only a general
meaning retained, no matter what the internal morphemes would ordinarily
represent. For example, the conventional frozen sign for "falling down" (see
Figure 2) has a handshape with both the index and middle fingers extended
(V-handshape). In novel verbs, this handshape is a noun-classifying mor­
pheme representing the category of two-legged animal; but this handshape
is no longer morphemic in the conventional frozen sign. Instead, the frozen
verb is used for any event where something falls. The handshapes in frozen
verbs are no longer independent morphemes, although they may derive his­
torically from productive, morphemic noun agreement markers. Similar
phenomena of morphological freezing of course occur in spoken languages
184 TED SUPPALLA

as well. For example, much of the morphology of verbs of motion and location
in Navajo (including some of the classifier system) is said to be frozen and
unanalyzed. In ASL, however, the morphology of verbs of motion is currently
highly productive in native signing, with frozen structures confined only to
individual, commonly used lexical items. In the present chapter, I will focus
only on the productive, morphemic noun agreement markers.

2. Typology and morphology of ASL classifiers

As stated above, the handshape of the ASL verb of motion is typically
a classifier morpheme, marking the class or categorization of the associated
noun. Our analyses show that the ASL classifiers incorporate meaning based
primarily on salient visual-tactile characteristics of the referent object. Very
similar semantic constraints have been found so commonly across spoken
languages using classifiers that Allan (1977) considered this to be a universal
constraint on classifiers. Although Allan was referring to the classifiers found
in spoken language, such a conclusion applies as well to the linguistic clas­
sifiers in the visual-manual mode.
It is not the purpose of this paper to present a complete list of classifiers
found in ASL but rather to describe the structural, typological, and semantic
features underlying these classifiers and to compare this classifier system to
those found in spoken languages by Allan (1977).
There are several ways in which native signers classify nouns in ASL:
1) One way is when the handshape represents the size and shape of the object
(that is, a size-and-shape-specifier). In this case, parts of the hand are mor­
phemes which individually represent various aspects of the referent object.
The hand itself may refer to one or two dimensions of the referent object.
This hand may be placed in relation to the other hand or to other parts of
the same signing arm to represent further dimensions of the object. It may
then be moved through a series of points in space, in which the hand seems
to trace an outline of the referred object in two or three dimensions. 2) In
the second way of classifying nouns, the hand articulator represents the
semantic category of the referent object. (For this reason I will refer to this
kind of classifier as a semantic classifier). 3) All the types of classifiers discus­
sed so far involve only the hand articulators moving around in space. There
is only one type of classifier that is physically marked with the whole body
of the signer. In this case, the body articulator is used to refer to animate
objects having bodies and limbs (that is, a body classifier). This classifier is
a kind of mimetic representation rather than a visual-geometric representa-
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 185

tion of the noun. 4) The fourth way of classifying nouns is when the hand
or some other part of the signer's body is used to represent a bodypart in
the referent (that is, a bodypart classifier). The body articulator is involved
here as a location for the bodypart. The mimetic representation, in this case,
is appropriate only when a human hand is referred to. Otherwise, if some
other bodypart (e.g., head, mouth or foot) is referred to, a visual-geometric
representation would be used instead. 5) A final type of classification is by
the type of instrument (either a hand or a mechanical instrument) which acts
on the object. An instrument classifier may either be derived from mimetic
representation (in the case where the instrument is a hand manipulating the
object) or from visual-geometric representation of the instrument (in the
case where the instrument is mechanical). In either case, the object being
manipulated is not directly referred to. In sum, there are at least five separate
groups of classifiers, each group derived independently through different
morphophonological processes.
To illustrate the independence of the derivational processes for these
classifier groups, the morphophonological organization will be compared
across the five different classifier groups enumerated above: size-and-shape
specifiers, semantic classifiers, body classifiers, and instrumental classifiers.
First, I will start with the derivations of the size-and-shape specifiers. Signific­
ant phonological and semantic features will be introduced at each of several
derivational levels. Some examples of phonological and semantic contrasts
will be presented. Similar descriptions will then be given of the derivational
processes for the other five groups of classifiers. In the subsequent section
(Section 2.6) I will then discuss several additional morphological processes,
in which morphemes may be affixed to a classifier to represent qualities of
the noun such as its consistency and physical integrity, or for more than one
noun, their quantity, and relative locations or status. The final section (Sec­
tion 2.7) then shows how the classifier system can be manipulated so that
new classifiers can be synthesized to refer to new classes of nouns.

2.1. Size and shape specifiers

One type of classifier is what has been called size and shape specifiers
(henceforth: SASSes) (Newport and Bellugi, 1978). A similar type of clas­
sifier, with semantic distinctions the same as those made in ASL SASSes,
has been found in spoken languages. See Adams and Conklin's description
of shape classifiers in spoken languages (Adams and Conklin, 1973). The
SASS classifiers in ASL are morphemes of the verb of motion or location
186 TED SUPPALLA

which agree with the noun in various aspects of its size and shape. Each
SASS actually consists not of a single handshape morpheme, but of a group
of simultaneous hand-part morphemes: each finger as well as the thumb and
forearm is possible morpheme which can combine in specifiable ways to
form a handshape (Supalla, 1978; in press). These hand-part morphemes
each classify a different aspect or dimension of the visual-geometric structure
of the noun referent. For example, one hand-part marks whether the referent
is a dot (i.e., 0-dimensional) or a one-or-more dimensional object; another
hand-part marks whether it is straight or round in shape; and so on. These
hand-parts together form a static SASS. In addition, certain handshapes can
have a limited set of movement morphemes added to represent further dimen­
sions of the object, by a kind of "tracing" or outlining of the dimension in
space. The latter I have called tracing SASSes (Supalla, 1978; in press).
The process of combining hand parts into handshapes is a productive
system in which parts must be combined in a fixed order. If only one mor­
pheme is marked on the unmarked hand, the specified part of the hand
becomes an independent morpheme. But there are some hand parts (e.g.,
+ middle finger) that are not independent morphemes, as they can only be
added to the hand already marked with another hand-part morpheme. Such
morphemes are considered bound morphemes which can be added only in
later derivational levels.
The morphophonological structure of static SASSes is shown in Figure
3. The SASSes included here are from my dialect. Each level of derivations
of the static SASSes is described successively in the following subsections.
Other types of SASSes like the tracing SASSes are then discussed afterwards.

2.1.1. First-level static SASSes

For a size-and-shape specifier, the derivational process begins with an
unmarked handshape. Two possible morphemic features can be added to
the unmarked handshape to allow it to function as a SASS classifier in its
simple form. For either case, the hand would be marked with a phonological
feature which adds the index finger to the unmarked handshape. This finger
would extend straight from the hand. Such a hand is not a pointing gesture,
but functions as a morpheme that classifies the noun it refers to. This one
handshape forms either of two distinctive noun markers, in terms of which
component of the index finger is semantically significant. In the first hand-
shape, only the fingertip of the index finger is meaningful. This handshape
is a classifier in which the fingertip is used to refer to a small dot or a speck
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 187

of something (i.e., a basically 0-dimensional object). In the second hand-

shape, the whole finger is meaningful. This hand is a different classifier, used
to refer to linear figures like an arrow or a stick (i.e., a basically 1-dimensional
object).
The next possible phonological addition is the presence of the thumb,
which can be added only to the hand already marked with an index finger. If
the hand is marked with the thumb, there are three possible groups of hand-
shapes that the finger and thumb can be shaped into. Each group is then
further marked for a small number of alternative degrees of size. In the first
group, the index finger and thumb are shaped as if they were bending forward
into a circle and are used to classify 2-dimensional curved objects. This
marked hand requires further marking by one of four degrees of bending of
the finger and thumb. For each of these latter features, there is an associated
semantic distinction that refers to the size of the curved or round figure.
For the second group of finger-thumb handshapes, the primary
phonological feature involves straight finger and thumb digits with a bend
only at the joints connecting the finger and thumb to the hand (that is, the
handshape is a kind of jackknife); this set of handshapes is used to classify
objects involving two intersecting lines. This group is then further marked
for one of two degrees of angle between the finger and thumb, with a corres­
ponding semantic distinction of the angular arrangement of two linear parts
of a figure.
The classifiers derived in the third group are semantically different in
that only the size, rather than both the size and shape of a figure, is rep­
resented. In this group, the finger and thumb are held parallel to each other
while the distance between them is varied. The semantic feature involved
here is the dimension of distance across a figure. It may be appropriate to
consider this group of handshapes as "size specifiers" instead of the general
SASSes.
The rest of the static SASS handshapes are derived at the next two
morphophonological levels. The higher-level classifiers are both semantically
and phonologically more complex than the earlier derived forms. The set of
semantic features incorporated in the first and second derivational levels
indicates that the semantic hierarchy in the earlier levels can only represent
objects in at most two dimensions. For instance, a first-level SASS classifier
can refer to a round object like a coin but is not used to refer to a tape roll,
a cup, or a ball. The latter three objects require more complex three-dimen­
sional features that are represented only in second-level SASS classifiers.
188 TED SUPPALLA

2.1.2. Second-level static SASSes.

The second-level SASSes all share one phonological contrast: the incor­
poration of the minor fingers (middle, ring, and pinkie fingers). The SASS
classifier for the tape roll (narrow cylindrical shape) is different from the
SASS classifier for the cup as it has the fingers bound together; but for the
ball, the fingers are spread out from the hand with gaps between.
To describe these phonological contrasts at the second level, the hand
is marked phonologically with either of two handpart features, (+index and
middle fingers) or (+index, middle, ring, and pinkie fingers). Furthermore,
the hand is also marked with one of four other features that deal with the
various ways in which the fingers interact with each other. They may be
bound together, set apart but parallel to each other, or spread out in either
of two ways: the fingers diverging across a flat plane in space or diverging
instead across a curved plane in space.
It should be noted that so far we have described the semantic features
added at each derivational level in terms of the addition of a dimension in
space. SASSes with only the features marked at the first derivational level
classify 0, 1 or 2-dimensional shapes (e.g., a point, a straight line or a circle).
The semantic contrasts at the second derivational level were discussed above
as the introduction of 3-dimensional features. However, the semantic fea­
tures added at this second derivational level are not always those of the third
dimension. More accurately, the second derivational level adds an addi­
tional dimension to those already marked at the first derivational level. The
addition of minor fingers to 2-dimensional size and shape specifiers like the
circle classifier does add third-dimensional features; but for point classifiers
(0-dimensional) and straight-line classifiers (1-dimensional), the addition of
minor fingers introduces 2-dimensional features. For the point classifier
group, the addition of other fingers and their interactions would allow the
classifier to refer to the number of points and the arrangement of these points
(i.e., points arranged either in a straight row or on a circle). When derived
through the second level, the classifier in the straight-SASS group would
refer to the width of a flat shape if the fingers are marked as bound together
but would refer to a number of lines if the interaction of fingers is marked
otherwise. For instance, a SASS handshape with the index and middle finger
bound together is used to refer to a bandaid while another handshape with
the two fingers split apart is used instead for a ladder.
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 189

2.1.3. Third-level static SASSes

For very wide or long objects, the SASSes would undergo another deri­
vational level, at which the classifier would have added to it either of two
features : (+forearm), or ( + second hand). These phonological features intro­
duce other 2- and 3-dimensional aspects to the second-level SASSes. The
forearm is an independent morpheme that represents long shapes and can
combine with straight SASSes to mark great length (e.g., when the forearm
is added to the two split fingers handshape, the resulting classifier refers to
a long ladder). Two hands can be used with straight SASSes to represent
3-dimensional shapes with straight sides (e.g., when the two open flat hands
are placed side by side in two different orientations in sequence, the resulting
classifier refers to a cube, like a box or a room). These forms are presented
in Figure 4.

2.1.4. Tracing SASSes·

Another way of classifying the shape of the object is moving the SASS
classifier across space, so that the hand traces a two- or three-dimensional
outline of the referred object. This is what Mandel (1977) calls "sketching".
For example, two open flat hands can be used to trace the shape of a house
(see Figure 5). These tracing SASSes are derived in my analysis by having
the static SASS handshapes undergo higher-level derivational processes, in
which a tracing movement is added to represent those dimensional charac­
teristics of the object not marked by the handshape alone.
Unlike actual sketching or tracing, however, there is a limited number
of tracing SASSes. Not every shape that can be sketched with the hands is
grammatical in the language. Accordingly, each tracing SASS represents a
class of objects. Bellugi and Newkirk (1977) found tracing SASS forms in
certain types of sign compounds. They reported that these SASSes "do not
change shape or size to reflect fine differences in the properties of their
referents". As one example of the strict grammatical limitations on tracing,
the tracing movement always starts with both hands together in one place;
then one hand would move away in one direction, or both hands would move
in opposite directions. The arrangement and movement of the tracing SASSes
are restricted in the sense that they can only move from the base of the object
and cannot move in from the ends towards each other. If the hands did move
toward each other, they would be referring to two independent objects and,
therefore, are not tracing SASSes.
190 TED SUPPALLA

In addition to the classification morphemes described above, other clas֊

sificatory morphemes can be added to SASSes to mark the texture and con­
sistency of the substance (e.g., wiggling of fingers for fluidity of a substance).
These, along with other classification processes affixed to classifiers, will be
discussed further in Section 2.6.

2.2. Semantic classifiers.

As compared to SASSes, semantic classifiers are somewhat more
abstract in terms of representing objects. The SASSes represent visual-
geometric attributes of the referent object through internal morphological
handparts. While the semantic classifiers may have discernible origins of
representing the shape of objects, current usage of the semantic classifiers
is a single morpheme represented by the entire handshape. For instance, a
tree is referred to by a classifier in which the vertical forearm is combined
with the spread hand (see Figure le). One can recognize this shape as an
outline of a conventional tree, but this classifier can be used to refer to trees
of different shapes (e.g., palm trees or pine trees). Thus, this classifier refers
abstractly to the semantic category of trees, and not to the shape of the
referent. Semantic classifiers like those found in ASL have also been found
in spoken languages. See, for example, Adams and Conklin's description of
function classifiers (Adams and Conklin, 1973).
Other semantic classifiers do not even look much like their referents.
The vehicle classifier looks very little like a car or a motocycle (see Figure
la-g). The ASL community has a traditional explanation for the vehicle
classifier's origin, that is, that the handshape was first used as a classifier for
a sailing vessel (Mandel, 1981). This handshape is used in the conventional
sign for "ship" and the etymological description listed in the Dictionary of
American Sign Language (Stokoe, Casterline and Croneburg, 1965) for this
sign is that the handshape refers to the mast and spars of a sailing vessel.
This overextension of meaning of a classifier from a small set of referents to
a broader category of referents is not unique to ASL as Allan, 1977, noted
that most vehicle classifiers in spoken languages originated as classifiers for
sailing vessels.
There are two groups of semantic classifiers that contrast in the material
classification of the noun. In one group, the classifiers refer to objects with
legs like humans, animals and some furniture. These classifiers are phonolog-
ically composed of finger extensions from the central hand with each exten­
sion representing a leg of the object. In contrast, the second group of clas-
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 191

sifiers has nothing to do with legs of the object. This group includes three
different types of classifiers, each referring to a certain function as well as
the orientation of the object (i.e., freely maneuverable, horizontal object
for the first subgroup, freely maneuverable, vertical object for the second
subgroup, and fixed columnar object for the third subgroup). Classifiers
within each subgroup vary in number and arrangement of finger/thumb/
forearm extensions that reflect the shape of the referent noun.
Furthermore, all of these groups of classifiers are specialized in move­
ment. Legged object classifiers can be marked with movement morphemes
representing the manner of locomotion of the object along a path. Maneuv­
erable object classifiers would require a different set of movement mor­
phemes representing the object's course along a path. On the other hand,
the fixed object classifiers refer to unmaneuverable objects fixed to their
bases and, thus, are restricted to local movements like waving or shaking
back and forth.
Despite the differences in handshape and movement, all of these clas­
sifiers in the two groups are phonologically more simple than the SASSES
and seem not to be derived from morphemic handparts as are the SASSes.
They are constructed of simple handshapes with fingers and thumb extended
flat from the hand. The center of the body of the referent object is represented
by the unmarked hand and each marked finger or thumb represents an exten­
sion protuding from the body of the object. The separation of extendedness
concepts from shape and size concepts is not unique to ASL as Denny (1976a)
shows that the classifiers in spoken languages make this distinction.

2.2.1. Legged object classifiers

A separate derivational process is used for the group of legged object
classifiers. There are two different base forms which share one common
feature: two fingers being extended downward from the hand. A normal-
sized person would be referred to by the hand with the index and middle
finger extended. The thumb and pinkie finger are extended to refer to wide
two-legged objects like an obese person. A second hand can be added to
either case to refer to a four-legged animal. Only the underlying form with
the index and middle fingers can undergo more derivations to produce other
classifiers to refer to various types of legged animals like a dog, frog, bird
or spider based on the number of legs and size of the animal.
192 TED SUPPALLA

2.2.2. Maneuverable horizontal object classifiers.

There is one base form shared among the classifiers for unattached
horizontal objects where the palm of the hand is facing downward so that
the central part of the hand is positioned horizontally. This horizontal hand
orientation functions as a morpheme representing the horizontal position of
the referent noun. Other morphemes are added to the hand in two deriva­
tional steps. In the first derivation, there are two general classifiers that
contrast in the number of finger extensions as well as in the semantic represen­
tation. One classifier is marked with a morpheme which extends only the
index finger forward. This classifier is used to refer to any saliently one-
dimensional horizontal object moving across space like a flying bird. In con­
trast, the second classifier is marked with a morpheme that extends all the
fingers out straight and flat. This classifier refers to any saliently two-dimen­
sional horizontal object moving across space like a car.
Other individual finger and thumb extensions are involved in marking
the hand at the second derivational level for the rest of the horizontal object
classifiers. Several features may also be combined simultaneously to create
a handshape with three extensions as represented by the airplane classifier
in my dialect. Figure 6 shows a list of all possible forms of airplane classifiers,
each used in separate regional dialects of ASL. Signers in different regions
of America have independently derived different handshapes for the airplane
classifier. These handshapes share the same semantic features, yet the com­
binations of finger extensions derived at the second level of the morphological
process vary. All five variants share two semantic features: horizontal orien­
tation of the object's body and two symmetrical extensions from the central
body of the object (i.e., the wings of the airplane). The two classifier variants
shown on the bottom row of Figure 6 are two exceptions. Although they
share the feature of two symmetrical extensions, they both have an extra
morpheme for the fuselage of the airplane.

2.2.3. Maneuverable vertical object classifiers.

The group of vertical object classifiers have two different underlying
forms, each requiring a different hierarchical set of phonological features
involved in the derivations. One underlying form has the hand oriented
upright on its base with its palm facing forward. There is one object classifier
that is derived from this underlying form into a handshape with the index
finger extended. This classifier refers to the class of saliently one-dimensional
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 193

vertical human beings and other upright animals. The hand may be further
derived where each other finger and thumb extension would function as a
morpheme in the derivational process to quantify the noun. Since the seman­
tic function of such classifiers is different, this process is further discussed in
a later section covering the system of number classifiers in ASL.
The other underlying form has the hand oriented vertically on its side.
There are several classifiers which are phonologically contrasted by exten­
sions of the hand parts. One classifier has all four fingers extended forward.
This classifier refers to saliently two-dimensional vertical objects (e.g., a
fish). In contrast, when the vertical object has salient individual projections,
fingers are added to the hand with each finger representing a projection from
the body of the object. The vehicle classifier, described earlier in this paper,
originated as a classifier for a sailing vessel with projecting masts.

2.2.4. Columnar object classifiers.

The columnar object classifier has the forearm positioned vertically with
the hand closed tightly at the top of the forearm. This classifier is used to
refer to foundations and other support beams. This is similar to those clas­
sifiers representing "maintenance of vertically" found in spoken languages
like Tzeltal (see Berlin, 1968). The forearm itself represents some kind of
solid columnar body. The columnar classifier shares this forearm morpheme
with the tree classifier, in which the forearm is combined with the hand and
fingers all extending to refer to the branches of the tree.

2.3. Body classifiers.

A separate morphophonological system governs the internal compo­
nents of the body classifiers. The body classifiers are different from all other
groups discussed above in the nature of the resources used, as well as in the
nature of representation. All types of classifiers discussed so far involve only
the hand articulators moving around in space.
The body classifier involves the whole body of the signer and is used as
an independent articulator morpheme to mark noun agreement referring to
an individual person. This type of classifier is used to refer to the whole body
of the animate object rather than to the semantic category or shape of the
object itself. For example, the signer's body can be used as a marker to refer
to the body of the referent object, as in the verb HIT-IN-THE-EYE, where
a closed-fist hand moves toward the signer's body (see Figure 7).
194 TED SUPPALLA

There are several restrictions in using the body classifier system. First,
the body classifier can be used only when the noun referent is animate.
Second, when a body classifier is incorporated into a verb, it can mark only
one referent object (although various locations on the body can be marked
to refer to various attributes of the same referent object). Third, the reference
scale must be consistent when body classifiers and classifier handshapes are
combined, in other words, the relative sizes of the referent nouns constrain
the combination of these classifiers. Fourth, if the whole body is used to
refer to an agent carrying out an action, the body classifier cannot be com­
bined with a movement path across space. Verbs involving body articulators
can only express manners of movement (but not paths of movement), whereas
verbs involving hand articulators can express either or both of these aspects
of motion (see Talmy, 1972, for related restrictions in verbs of motion in
spoken languages).

2.4. Bodypart classifiers.

The bodypart classifier has two articulatory components, each
specialized in semantic representation: the hand articulator component
marks the shape of the bodypart while the body location component marks
the spatial orientation of the body part. My preliminary analysis indicates
that the bodypart classifier system shares the same structure as those found
in spoken languages for categorizing bodyparts. Andersen (1978) examined
the structure of bodypart terms across different languages and found the
same kind of universal principles of categorization as used in other semantic
domains. That is, the categorization of bodyparts is also based on the percep­
tual saliences of shape, size, and spatial orientation. In ASL these attributes
are represented by the combination of the SASS handshapes and body loca­
tions.
Various locations on the signer's body, like the eyes, nose or mouth,
can be used to mark these attributes on the referent objects. The signer can
either point to a certain location on his body to represent the bodypart (e.g.
pointing to his eye) or trace the outline of the bodypart on his body (e.g.
making a circle around his face to refer to the face). The signer also can use
a location on his body as a bodypart classifier within a verb. For example,
the verb HIT-IN-THE-EYE includes one eye of the signer as the location
toward which the signer moves his hand articulator.
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 195

2.4.1. Bodypart SASSes.

If the bodypart classifier is used to represent a specific attribute or activ­
ity of a body part, a hand articulator must be added to mark the noun as
well. That is, the signer would have to place the hand articulator morphemes
representing visual-geometric features of this body part on a certain location
on his own body. The bodypart classifier is now marked with morphemes
simultaneously representing the size and shape of the body part and the
spatial orientation of the body part. For example, the stative SASS represent­
ing the multiple of long thin shapes would be placed on the signer's mouth
to refer to the teeth of a tiger. If the tracing SASS representing rows of lines
is placed on the signer's cheek or chest, the combination would instead refer
to the stripes of the tiger.

2.4.2. Limb classifiers.

There are two other groups of bodypart classifiers that refer to the limbs
of an animate two-legged object: one group represents the hands and
forelimbs, while the other group represents the legs and feet. Some limb
classifiers have mimetic handshapes referring to the hands of a human, while
other limb classifiers have SASS handshapes referring to shape and size of
the limbs of a non-human animal, as well as the legs and feet of the human.
The limb classifier can be used to refer to a specific kind of animal. There
is a limited set of limb classifiers for representing postures and activities of
different animals. For example, the same combination of body and hand
morphemes is used to refer to both a rabbit and a kangaroo, which both
have paws for their front limbs (see Figure 8a). A different handshape would
be used to refer to a tiger or a bear (see Figure 8b). These combinations
involve a systematic organization of the limb classifier components, each
component functioning as a classifier morpheme for various parts and shapes
of front limbs.
In contrast, the rear legs and feet cannot possibly be represented by this
kind of classifier combination. The actual bodypart locations of the signer
below his torso are not phonologically significant in ASL. However, ASL
provides another way to make reference to the rear legs and feet, by placing
SASS classifiers in midair in front of the signer. See Figure 9a and 9b for
the classifier constructions of human legs and feet, respectively. These SAS­
Ses, combined with the body classifier, refer to a whole animate object, and
especially to human activities using the legs and feet, such as running, walking
or propping one's feet up on a desk (See Figure 9c, 9d and 9e).
196 TED SUPPALLA

2.5. Instrument classifiers.

As in spoken languages, different classifiers may be used to represent
the same noun in ASL. Thus, each noun has its own inventory of classifiers,
with each classifier focusing on different characteristics of the referent object.
Several classifiers may be interchanged throughout the discourse, for the
same noun. At the same time, the selection of classifiers from a noun's
inventory is determined by which aspect of the interaction between the agent,
the instrument and the patient the discourse will focus on.
Once the focus is made on the action of manipulating the object in an
event, there are several ways one can refer to the instrument. When a human
agent is involved, the action of the agent manipulating the object with its
hands is marked as the instrumental hand classifier. Alternatively, if the agent
is manipulating the object with a tool, then a tool classifier referring to the
visual-geometric features of the instrument would be used instead. If the
agent is manipulating the object with some other body part (e.g., the foot,
as when kicking something), a bodypart SASS referring to this body part
would be used as an instrument classifier. The rest of the instrument classifiers
seem to be derived as ordinary SASSes referring only to visual-geometric
attributes of the mechanical instrument (e.g., the pronged platform of the
forklift). A similar type of classifier, with semantic distinctions similar to
those made in ASL instrument classifiers has been found in spoken languages.
See, for example, Berlin's description of action classifiers in Tzeltal (Berlin,
1968).

2.5.1. Instrumental hand classifiers.

The instrumental hand classifiers are used to contrast the various ways
the human hand interacts with solid objects of different shapes and sizes.
Each internal handpart morpheme of the instrumental hand classifier repre­
sents a different aspect in the visual-tactile mode. The handpart morphemes
are organized in a hierarchical order, starting with the function of the hand,
then the region of the hand contacting the object, then the manner of this
contact and finally the size and shape of the object the hand is interacting
with. There are several possible features represented in each hierarchical
level, thus, combinations of different handpart morphemes could produce
about thirty discrete instrumental hand classifiers. Figure 10 shows the
organization of some instrumental hand classifiers on the basis of these mor­
pheme combinations.
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 197

2.5.2. Tool classifiers.

Some other instrumental classifiers are not part of the conventional
classifier groups discussed above. They seem to have their own set of mor֊
phophonological features which implies that they are hybridized versions of
instrument classifiers. Such classifiers are used for manually operated tools.
My preliminary analysis suggests that they are hybridized forms constructed
of different derivations of handparts, orientation and movement. These tool
classifiers incorporate mimetic movement features to mark the manner of
how the agent manipulates the tool, but their handshapes are different from
the conventional instrumental hand classifiers. The hybridized handshapes
in tool classifiers are referring to the shape of the tool rather than to the
manipulating hands of the agent. Some hand tools, like a hammer or pliers,
can only be referred to by hand instrument classifiers, while other tools like
a screwdriver, wrench, knife and scissors can be referred to either by hy­
bridized tool classifiers or by hand instrument classifiers, depending on which
aspect of the interaction between the agent's hand, the tool and the object,
the discourse will focus.

2.6. Morphemes for other properties of noun classes.

In spoken languages, the semantic parameters of shape are classified in
two levels: the basic features (e.g., long, round) and the secondary features
(e.g., wide, thin, flexible). While a basic shape feature can be solely rep­
resented in a classifier, no secondary feature can be marked alone in a clas­
sifier (Adams and Conklin, 1973). A similar constraint is found in ASL where
the morphemes representing secondary shape features can only be affixed
to a classifer. Section 2.1 shows how the secondary features are marked by
morpheme affixes to SASSes (i.e., second-level and third-level SASS deriva­
tions). This section describes several additional morphological processes
marking other secondary features of shape like texture, consistency and integ­
rity of the noun. This section also describes how ASL classifies the quantity
of the noun. To quantify the noun classifier, there are several types of clas­
sification processes in spoken languages ranging from the inflectional number
classifiers to lexical numeral classifiers (see Craig's chapter in this book).
There are similar grammatical processes for marking number in ASL. Finally,
the section describes the morphological process in ASL for categorizing cer­
tain aspects of human relationships. Adams and Conklin (1973) shows that
classifiers in spoken languages may refer to a human by its social rank, or
198 TED SUPPALLA

less commonly by its kinship, to others. Only social status is categorized by

classifier morphemes in ASL.

2.6.1. Texture and consistency of the noun.

A conventional SASS including only classifier morphemes referring to
the size and shape of the referent noun would imply that the object is
homogeneous and rigid. However, when the object is not like this, other
morphemes are available to be combined with this classifier to specify other
features of this object. This subsection describes the semantic features of
these morphemes in ASL, as well as the morphological processes for combin­
ing these morphemes with the basic classifier. There are two sets of mor­
phemes which contrast in the mode of perception: the semantic categories
represented in one set are based on vision, while those categories found in
the other set are based instead on touch. As a consequence of this perceptual
contrast, the morphological processes are different for these two sets of
morphemes.

2.6.1.1 Visual texture and consistency morphemes.

The morphemes in the first set can co-occur with certain SASS classifiers.
Figure 11 lists four different complex classifier forms included in the first
set. These four forms are each composed of two morphemic components,
with each component representing a different visual dimension of consistency
in the substance of the object. For the first component, the four examples
show two semantic values, both concerned with aspects of the mass of the
object. The SASS handshape in Figure 11a and 11b refers to the volume
occupied by a liquid or gaseous object. The other SASS handshape as shown
in Figure 11c and 11d refers to the continuous surface of a solid object.
Each of these SASSes is combined with a second morphemic component
that marks the quality of the substance. The first pair of examples (Figure
11a and 11b) have the same SASS handshape representing the volume of
the object, but differ in the second component. The first example shows a
floating movement across space added to this SASS to refer to liquid sub­
stances. The second example shows a wiggling movement added instead to
refer to gaseous substances. In the second pair of examples (Figure 11c and
11d), the forms share a tracing SASS marking the surface of a solid object,
but again contrast in the second component. The first member of this pair
has the tracing SASS handshape affixed with a morpheme that binds the
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 199

hand tightly together while the hand moves ; this combination refers to smooth
textures. The second member of this pair has the hand instead moving in an
irregular fashion to refer to rough textures.

2.6.1.2 Tactile texture and consistency morphemes.

In contrast to the visual texture morphemes, the tactile morphemes
function only as separate lexemes that are signed subsequent to the basic
classifier construction. Furthermore, in contrast to the visual feature mor­
phemes, these morphemes can be added to any kind of SASS that represents
a solid object. In each tactile morpheme there is an instrumental hand clas­
sifier that is combined with certain movements to refer to various tactile
dimensions of the substance of the referent object. Figure 12 lists three
examples. The first two examples (see Figure 12a and 12b) share a tactile
classifier referring to the human hand grasping something,but they contrast
in the movement component. The first has the hand opening and closing at
a slow rate to represent softness of the object. In the second, this movement
is made in a different pattern where the middle finger and thumb seem to
stick to each other. This morpheme combination refers to sticky substances
like glue or tar. The last example (see Figure 12c) has a different classifier
handshape that refers to the manner of contacting rather than grasping the
substance. The example has a tactile classifier for the hand touching some­
thing with its middle finger. This classifier is then combined with a rapid
movement that moves the hand away from the location of the object. This
form refers to the shininess of the object.

2.6.2 Physical integrity of the noun.

There are several marker affixes that may be added to any type of
classifier. One affix is a broken morpheme, which involves bending the clas­
sifier handshape. A thin and straight SASS (i.e., the hand with the index
finger extended straight) plus the broken affix (i.e., bending of this finger)
would refer, for example, to a broken pencil. A second affix is a wrecked
morpheme, in which the classifier handshape is warped as a whole rather
than in an individual handpart as in the broken affix. The tree classifier with
the wrecked affix added would have all the fingers bent to various degrees
to refer to a deformed tree (e.g., dried-up or dead tree).
200 TED SUPPALLA

2.6.3 Quantity of noun.

So far this paper discusses classifiers that are singular; they all represent
one object. There are several ways to represent more than one object with
a singular classifier. One is to use classifiers on both hands. This enables the
signer to represent the locations and actions of two referents. A second way
is to add other handparts as in the case with some SASSes where each finger
would represent one section of the object. See Figure Id for the SASS refer­
ring to the rails of a fence. Another way is to involve some form of repetition
when placing the classifier in space, each time placing the classifier in a
different location. These manipulations of singular classifiers are part of
productive inflectional processes in ASL for pluralizing noun agreements in
verbs (See Klima and Bellugi, 1979, for more details on these inflectional
processes).
ASL also has a small set of number classifiers which can be used instead
of inflecting singular classifiers. Specific-number classifiers use the hand-
shapes for numbers to represent a specific number of people. Each number
classifier is derived as a multiple of the vertical object classifier (described
in Section 2.2.3). From one to five specific individuals can be represented
on each hand by using one classifier in which each upright finger represents
a person. In contrast, a second type of number marker functions as a plural
morpheme as it is not specific in number. This number classifier represents
an array of many individuals. Here both hands are used together with all
fingers extended but the hands can also be placed in various arrangements
(i.e., a long line or circle of people).
ASL has several other types of number markers. One is a set of classifiers
which represent a herd or group, rather than the number of individuals.
Similar classifiers in spoken languages have been called collection classifiers
(see Allan, 1977). Herd and group markers in ASL are derived separately
from number classifiers. They originate derivationally as SASSes which then
combine with certain tracing and stamping movements to represent the shape
and size of the crowd.
Finally, Liddell, et.al. (1984) have suggested that there are numeral
classifiers in ASL used specifically with nominal morphemes of time (e.g.,
month, year) and monetary quantity (e.g., dollar). However, the evidence
that these number constructions do in fact involve classifiers is not yet clear.
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 201

2.6.4 Relative position of noun.

There is one abstract classifier handshape involved in the linguistic
categorization of the position of the referent object. This handshape has the
thumb extending upward from the closed fist hand. The linguistic categoriza­
tion of the social interaction or status of the objects is marked by the arrange­
ment of the hands, rather than by variation in the individual handshapes
themselves. A vertical arrangement of two hands, each with this handshape,
represents the relative status between two individual referents (for example,
one person being superior over someone else); or it can also represent the
literal locative relationship between two referents (for example, one person
being above another in space). A horizontal arrangement of these same
handshapes instead represents the interaction between two individuals who
are sharing or competing for the same status (for example, one person being
with or racing against the other person).
Status classifiers like those found in ASL have also been found in spoken
languages. See Denny (1976b) for the description of social interaction
categorizations. ASL does not have specific classifiers for other social interac­
tion categories like kinship and gender; however, Taiwanese Sign Language
does have distinctive classifier handshapes to refer to such categories (Smith,
1979).

2.7 Creative manipulations of classifiers.

Modifying a conventional classifier to create a new classifier is a common
process for native signers. A signer may manipulate handpart morphemes
to produce novel handshapes, as if he recognizes the independence of the
handparts in the classifier. He also may "play" with the classifier system,
replacing a conventional classifier with another one for humor or wit. A
signer can also play with the classifier system by creating a new classifier into
a single handshape to refer to the space shuttle or to a space fighter as in
the "Star Wars" movies (see Figure 13).
However, there are some linguistic constraints on such modifications.
Not all the forms which can be produced by the human articulators can be
generated by the ASL classifier system; some are phonetic variants of the
grammatical forms, while many others are simply ungrammatical (grammat­
ically impossible) forms.
202 TED SUPPALLA

3. Summary.
This chapter has overviewed the various types of classifiers thus far
discovered within verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language.
Overall, the types of classification found in ASL, as well as the particular
categories found within the classes, are like those found in spoken languages
(See Adams, Delancey, Denny and Creider, Erbaugh, Payne in this volume,
Erbaugh 1984). Moreover, this is true despite the potential in a visual-manual
language for a more analogue, depictive representation of objects which
would in principle permit rather different or more detailed classification than
might be found in a spoken language. These similarities thus underline the
role of basic human linguistic and categorization principles, and not the
particular characteristics of the input-output modality, in the organization
of classifier systems.

Acknowledgements
This reasearch was supported in part by NIH Grant No. NS 16878 to
Elissa Լ. Newport and Ted Supalla, Department of Psychology, University
of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. I want to express my gratitude to Jenny
Singleton and Elissa Newport for their valuable help with the use of the
English language in the writing of this paper, and to Elissa Newport for
helpful discussion of ASL classifiers. All figures were drawn by myself; Fig­
ures 3,10 and 13 were adapted, with permission, from American Sign Lan­
guage andshape Cards, produced by Dawn Sign Press.

REFERENCES

Adams,  (This volume). "Numeral Classifiers in Austroasiatic."

Adams, K.L., & Conklin, N.F. 1973. "Toward a theory of natural classifica­
tion." Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,
1-.
Allan, K. 1977. "Classifiers." Language, 53, 285-311.
Andersen, E.S. 1978. Lexical universals of body-part terminology. In J.H.
Greenberg, C.Α. Fergusen & Ε.Α. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of
Human Language: Vol. 3. Word Structure. Stanford, CA.: Stanford Uni­
versity Press.
Bellugi, U., Newkirk, D. 1977. "Formal devices for creating new signs in
 THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 203

ASL." In W.C. Stokoe (ed.), Proceedings of the First National Symposium

on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Silver Spring, MD: National
Association of the Deaf.
Berlin, B. 1968. Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers: A study of Ethnographic Seman­
tics. The Hague: Mouton.
Craig, C.G. (This volume). "Jacaltec Classifiers: A Study in language and
culture."
Delancey, S. (Thisvolume). "Toward a History of Tai Classifier Systems."
Denny, J.P. 1976a. "The "extendedness" variable in classifier semantics:
Universal features and cultural variation." In press, International journal
of the Sociology of Language.
-----. 1976b. "What are noun classifiers good for?" Papers from the 12th
Regional Meeting, Chicago Lingustic Society, 12, 122-132.
Denny, J.P. & Creider, C. A. (This volume). The Semantics of Noun Classes
in Proto Bantu.
Erbaugh, M.S. (This volume). "Taking Stock: The Development of Chinese
Noun Classifiers Historically and in Young Children."
-----. 1984. "Scissors, paper, stone: Perceptual Foundations of Noun Clas­
sifier Systems." In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,
Vol.23.
Frishberg, N. 1975. "Arbitrariness and iconicity in American Sign Lan­
guage." Language, 51, 696-719.
Kegl, J. & Wilbur, R. 1976. "Where does structure stop and style begin?
Syntax, morphology, and phonology vs. stylistic variations in American
Sign Language. " Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguitic
Society, 376-396.
Klima, E., & Bellugi, U., With Battison, R., Boyes-Braem, P., Fischer, S.,
Frishberg, N., Lane, H., Lentz, E.M., Newkirk, D., Newport, Ε., Peder­
sen, ., & Siple, P. 1979. The Signs of language. Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Liddel, S., Ramsey, C.L., Powell, F.P., & Cornia, D.p. 1984. Numeral
incorporation and numeral classifiers in American Sign Language. Manu­
script, Gallaudet College.
Mandel, M. 1977. "Iconic devices in American Sign Language." In L. Fried­
man (ed.), On the Other Hand. New York: Academic Press.
-----. 1981. Phonotactics and Morphophonology in ASL. Unpublished disser­
tation, University of California at Berkeley.
Newport, E.L. 1981. "Constraints on structure: Evidence from American
204 TED SUPPALLA

Sign Language and language learning." In W.A. Collins (ed.), Aspects

of the development of competence. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychol­
ogy (vol 14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
-----. 1982. "Task specificity in language learning? Evidence from speech
perception and American Sign Language." In L.R. Gleitman & E. Wan­
ner (eds.), Language Acquisition: the State of the Art. New York: Cam­
bridge University Press.
Newport, E.L., & Bellugi, U. 1978. "Linguistic expression of category levels
in a visual-gestural language: A flower is a flower is a flower." In E. Rosch
& B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Erlbaum.
Payne, D.L. (This volume). "Noun Classification in Yagua."
Smith, W. 1979. Your Hands Can Become a Bridge. Taipei, Taiwan: The
Sign Language Club.
Stokoe, W.C., Jr., Casterline, D., & Cronebeg, C. 1965. A Dictionary of
American Sign Language. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet College Press.
Supalla, T. 1978. "Morphology of verbs of motion and location in American
Sign Language." In F. Caccamise (ed.), Proceedings of the Second
National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching. Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.
-----. (In press). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion in American
Sign Language. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Talmy, L. 1972. "The basis for a cross-linguistic typology of motion/location:"
Part I. Working Papers on Language Universals, 9, 42-116.

Table 1
English Translations of ASL Verbs of Motion in Figure 1

(a) A car wanders uphill.

(b) The car skids on the road.
(c) The car goes across the road.
(d) The car crashes through a fence.
(e) The car turns to avoid hitting a tree.
(f) The car hits a telephone pole.
(g) A person falls out of the car.
(h) The telephone pole falls down.
 T H E CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN A M E R I C A N SIGN L A N G U A G E 205

la. VEHICLE-WANDER- lb. VEHICLE-ROTATE-ON-

UPWARD-ACROSS- HORIZONTAL-WIDE-
HORIZONTAL-WIDE- STRAIGHT-SHAPE
STRAIGHT-SHAPE

 VEHICLE-MOVE-ACROSS-1d. VEHICLE-MOVE-THRU- le. VEHICLE-TURN-PAST-

HORIZONTAL-WIDE- FOUR-HORIZONTAL- TREE
STRAIGHT-SHAPE THIN-STRAIGHT-
SHAPES

1f. VEHICLE-MOVE-TO 1g- PERSON-FALL-FROM- 1h. LONG-VERTICAL-THIN

VERTICAL-THIN- VEHICLE STRAIGHT-SHAPE-
STRAIGHT-SHAPE SWING-TO-HORIZONTAL

Figure 1: A Sequence of ASL Verbs of Motion

206 TED SUPPALLA

Figure 3. The Organization of some static SASSes

THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 207

Figure 4. BOX, ROOM

Figure 5. HOUSE
208 TED SUPPALLA

Figure 6. Regional variants of airplane classifier

Figure 7. HIT-IN-THE-EYE
THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 209

Figure 8. Some examples of limb classifiers

210 TED SUPPALLA

9e. "propping up legs"

Figure 9. Human leg and foot classifiers

THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 211

Figure 10. The organization of some instrumental hand classifiers

212 TED SUPPALLA

11 "smooth texture" 11d. "rough texture"

Figure 11. Four examples of visual texture morphemes.

THE CLASSIFIER SYSTEM IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE 213

12a. "soft substance" 12b."sticky substance"

12c. "shiny substance"

Figure 12. Three examples of tactile texture morphemes

214 T E D SUPPALLA

Figure 13. Combination of rocket and airplane classifiers