{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024171888988361683, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.654761904761905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why Does Constructed Action Seem Obligatory? An Analysis of Classifiers and the Lack of Articulator-Referent Correspondence

This article explores constructed action (a signer's use of various parts of their body—such as the head, torso, and eyegaze—to depict the actions of a character) and why it appears to be an obligatory accompaniment to some so-called "classifier" (or polycomponential) signs. It is posited that constructed action is used to depict aspects of animate entities because polycomponential signs cannot capture such information, in a simultaneous fashion, on their own. In particular, the conventionalization of entity polycomponential signs, the number and shape of articulators in polycomponential signs, and motoric constraints for polycomponential sign production appear to be factors that could influence the use of constructed action. As such, constructed action appears to be a complementary strategy to the use of polycomponential signs (and perhaps other types of signs and signed language grammar) for communication. Possible reasons for the robustness of constructed action are offered.