1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Diachronica
  4. Volume 41, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Sign languages seem not to be amenable to traditional historical reconstruction via the comparative method, making it difficult to replicate the successes achieved in the diachronic study of spoken languages. We propose to alleviate this difficulty with an alternative approach that draws upon nonarbitrariness and biomechanics, especially the drive for reducing articulatory effort. We offer a demonstration of this approach, which can add confirmation to known relationships between sign languages and new evidence in support of suspected relationships, helping to fill in a methodological gap in the diachronic study of sign languages.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
2024-06-11
2025-02-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abner, Natasha, Carlo Geraci, Shi Yu, Jessica Lettieri, Justine Mertz & Anah Salgat
    2020 Getting the upper hand on sign language families: Historical analysis and annotation methods. FEAST31. 17–29. 10.31009/FEAST.i3.02
     https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i3.02 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adam, Meike, Wiebke Iversen, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford
    2007 Meaning on the one and on the other hand: Iconicity in native vs. foreign signed languages. InElżbieta Tabakowska, Christina Ljungberg & Olga Fischer (eds.), Insistent images, 211–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ill.5.19ada
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ill.5.19ada [Google Scholar]
  3. Adam, Robert
    2012 Language contact and borrowing. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 841–861. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.841
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.841 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2015 Standardization of sign languages. Sign Language Studies15(4). 432–445. 10.1353/sls.2015.0015
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2015.0015 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ajello, Roberto, Laura Mazzoni & Florida Nicolai
    1997 Gesti linguistici: La labializzazione in LIS [Linguistic gestures: Labialization in LIS]. Quaderni della Sezione di Glottologia e Linguistica – Dipartimento di Studu Medivali e Moderni – Università degli Studi «G. D’Annunzio» di Chieti91. 5–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson, Lloyd & David Peterson
    1980 A comparison of some American, British, Australian and Swedish signs: Evidence on historical changes in signs and some family relationships of sign languages. InBrita Bergman & Inger Ahlgren (eds.), Papers from the First International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Stockholm, Sweden, June 10–16, 1979. Leksand, Sweden: Swedish National Association of the Deaf.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery & Lori Sand
    1991 The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change3(3). 241–264. 10.1017/S0954394500000569
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000569 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bank, Richard, Onno Crasborn & Roeland van Hout
    2015 Alignment of two languages: The spreading of mouthings in Sign Language of the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingualism19(1). 40–55. 10.1177/1367006913484991
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006913484991 [Google Scholar]
  9. Battison, Robbin
    1974 Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies5(1). 1–9. 10.1353/sls.1974.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1974.0005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berthier, Ferdinand
    1852 L’Abbé de l’Épée: Sa vie, son apostolat, ses travaux, sa lutte et ses succès. Paris: Michel Lévy Frères.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blanchet, Alexandre
    1850 La surdi-mutité: Traité philosophique et médical suivi d’un petit dictionnaire usuel de mimique et de dactylologie à l’usage des médecins et des gens du monde. Paris: Labé.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Blything, Liam, Robert Davies & Kate Cain
    2015 Young children’s comprehension of temporal relations in complex sentences: The influence of memory on performance. Child Development86(6). 1922–1934. 10.1111/cdev.12412
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12412 [Google Scholar]
  13. Börstell, Carl, Onno Crasborn & Lori Whynot
    2020 Measuring lexical similarity across sign languages in Global Signbank. InProceedings of the LREC2020 9th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Sign Language Resources in the Service of the Language Community, Technological Challenges and Application Perspectives, 21–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
    2016 Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes39(2). 391–407. 10.1075/li.39.2.10bor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.10bor [Google Scholar]
  15. Braithwaite, Ben
    2020 Ideologies of linguistic research on small sign languages in the global South: A Caribbean perspective. Language & Communication741. 182–194. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brennan, Mary
    2005 Conjoining word and image in British Sign Language (BSL): An exploration of metaphorical signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies5(3). 360–382. 10.1353/sls.2005.0007
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2005.0007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Handshape in sign language phonology. InMartin van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 195–222. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0009
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0009 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2019 Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316286401
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286401 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brentari, Diane & Laurinda Crossley
    2002 Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics51. 105–130. 10.1075/sll.5.2.03bre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.5.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  21. Brentari, Diane & Howard Poizner
    1994 A phonological analysis of a deaf Parkinsonian signer. Language and Cognitive Processes9(1). 69–99. 10.1080/01690969408402110
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402110 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bromham, Lindell, Russell Dinnage, Hedvig Skirgård, Andrew Ritchie, Marcel Cardillo, Felicity Meakins, Simon Greenhill & Xia Hua
    2022 Global predictors of language endangerment and the future of linguistic diversity. Nature Ecology & Evolution6(2). 163–173. 10.1038/s41559‑021‑01604‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01604-y [Google Scholar]
  23. Brown, James
    1856 A vocabulary of mute signs. Baton Rouge, LA: Morning Comet Office.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Burns, Sarah
    1998 Irish Sign Language: Ireland’s second minority language. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities, 233–273. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Cagle, Keith
    2010 Exploring the ancestral roots of American Sign Language: Lexical borrowing from Cistercian Sign Language and French Sign Language. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Calderón Verde, Alicia, Donny Wilson Limonta, Gilmas Cervantes Soliño, Ariel Hernández Hernández & Elena Benedicto
    2018 Path and (a)telicity in space: Motion predicates in LSCu, Sign Language of Cuba. FEAST21. 1–15. 10.31009/FEAST.i2.01
     https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.01 [Google Scholar]
  27. Campello, Ana Regina e Souza
    2011 A constituição histórica da Língua de Sinais Brasileira: Século XVIII a XXI [The historical constitution of Brazilian Sign Language: 18th to 21st Century]. Revista Mundo & Letras21. 8–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Campos de Abreu, Antonio
    1994 The deaf social life in Brazil. InCarol Erting, Robert Johnson, Dorothy Smith & Bruce Snider (eds.), The deaf way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture, 114–116. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Cantin, Yann & Florence Encrevé
    2022 Perspectives: On the historicalness of sign languages. Frontiers in Communication71. 801862. 10.3389/fcomm.2022.801862
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.801862 [Google Scholar]
  30. Carling, Gerd & Niklas Johansson
    2014 Motivated language change: Processes involved in the growth and conventionalization of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia46(2). 199–217. 10.1080/03740463.2014.990293
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2014.990293 [Google Scholar]
  31. Caselli, Naomi & Jennie Pyers
    2017 The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science28(7). 979–987. 10.1177/0956797617700498
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617700498 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2020 Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition46(1). 127–139. 10.1037/xlm0000713
     https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000713 [Google Scholar]
  33. Caselli, Naomi, Corrine Occhino, Bruno Artacho, Andreas Savakis & Matthew Dye
    2022 Perceptual optimization of language: Evidence from American Sign Language. Cognition2241. 105040. 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105040
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105040 [Google Scholar]
  34. Clark, Eve
    1971 On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior10(3). 266–275. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(71)80054‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80054-3 [Google Scholar]
  35. Corazza, Serena
    1994 The history of sign language in Italian education of the deaf. InCarol Erting, Robert Johnson, Dorothy Smith & Bruce Snider (eds.), The deaf way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture, 186–193. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Corina, David & Ursula Hildebrandt
    2002 Psycholinguistic investigations of phonological structure in ASL. InRichard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 88–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Corina, David & Heather Knapp
    2006 Lexical retrieval in American Sign Language production. InLouis Goldstein, Douglas Whalen & Catherine Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology81, 213–240. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197211.1.213
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197211.1.213 [Google Scholar]
  38. Corina, David & Wendy Sandler
    1993 On the nature of phonological structure in sign language. Phonology10(2). 165–207. 10.1017/S0952675700000038
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000038 [Google Scholar]
  39. Crasborn, Onno
    2011 The other hand in sign language phonology. InMarc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1–18. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0010
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0010 [Google Scholar]
  40. Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij
    2003 Base joint configuration in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Phonetic variation and phonological specification. InJeroen van de Weijer, Vincent van Heuven & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The phonological spectrum. Volume I: Segmental structure (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science 233), 257–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.233.15cra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.233.15cra [Google Scholar]
  41. Crasborn, Onno, Inge Zwitserlood, Els van der Kooij & Richard Bank
    (eds.) 2020 Global Signbank, version 4. Radboud University, Nijmegen. https://signbank.cls.ru.nl/
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Crowley, Terry
    1987 An introduction to historical linguistics. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea: University of Papua New Guinea Press & Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Currie, Thomas, Simon Greenhill & Ruth Mace
    2010 Is horizontal transmission really a problem for phylogenetic comparative methods? A simulation study using continuous cultural traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B3651. 3903–3912. 10.1098/rstb.2010.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0014 [Google Scholar]
  44. Cuxac, Cristian & Marie-Anne Sallandre
    2007 Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. InElena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structure, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ćwiek, Aleksandra, Susanne Fuchs, Christoph Draxler, Eva Liina Asu, Dan Dediu, Katri Hiovain, Shigeto Kawahara, inter alia & Bodo Winter
    2022 The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B377(1841). 20200390. 10.1098/rstb.2020.0390
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0390 [Google Scholar]
  46. Dautriche, Isabelle, Kyle Mahowald, Edward Gibson, Anne Christophe & Steven Piantadosi
    2017 Words cluster phonetically beyond phonotactic regularities. Cognition1631. 128–145. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  47. de l’Épée, Charles-Michel
    1784 La véritable manière d’instruire les sourds et muets, confirmée par une longue expérience. Paris: Nyon l’aîné.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Degérando, Baron Joseph-Marie
    1827 De l’éducation des sourds-muets de naissance. Paris: Méquignon.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. DeGraff, Michel
    2005 Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole exceptionalism. Language in Society34(4). 533–591. 10.1017/S0047404505050207
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050207 [Google Scholar]
  50. Delaporte, Yves
    2007 Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue des signes française: Origine et évolution de 1200 signes. Paris: Editions du Fox.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Dennis, Dannah
    2005 A history of the education of the deaf in India and Nepal. Baltimore, MD: University of Baltimore dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Deo, Ashwini
    2015 Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics1(1). 179–197. 10.1146/annurev‑linguist‑030514‑125100
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125100 [Google Scholar]
  53. Desai, Pranshankar Lallubhai
    1930 The deaf and dumb in India and abroad. American Annals of the Deaf75(2). 137–145.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Dingemanse, Mark, Damián Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan
    2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(10) 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  55. Dingemanse, Mark, Marcus Perlman & Pamela Perniss
    2020 Construal of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition12(1). 1–14. 10.1017/langcog.2019.48
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.48 [Google Scholar]
  56. Dye, Matthew & Shui-I Shih
    2006 Phonological priming in British Sign Language. InLouis Goldstein, Douglas Whalen & Catherine Best (eds.), Laboratory phonology 8, 241–263. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197211.1.241
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197211.1.241 [Google Scholar]
  57. Edwards, Viv & Paddy Ladd
    1983 The linguistic status of British Sign Language. InMark Sebba & Loreto Todd (eds.), Urban pidgins and creoles: Papers from the York Creole Conference, 24–27. Heslington, UK: Department of Language, University of York.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Eichmann, Hanna
    2009 Planning sign languages: Promoting hearing hegemony? Conceptualizing sign language standardization. Current Issues in Language Planning10(3). 293–307. 10.1080/14664200903116287
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200903116287 [Google Scholar]
  59. Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier & Adam Schembri
    2015 Building BSL SignBank: The lemma dilemma revisited. International Journal of Lexicography28(2). 169–206. 10.1093/ijl/ecv008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecv008 [Google Scholar]
  60. Fenlon, Jordan & Erin Wilkinson
    2015 Sign languages in the world. InAdam Schembri & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistics and deaf communities, 5–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107280298.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107280298.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Fenlon, Jordan, Adam Schembri, Ramas Rentelis & Kearsy Cormier
    2013 Variation in handshape and orientation in British Sign Language: The case of the ‘1’ hand configuration. Language & Communication33(1): 69–91. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Ferrand, Jean
    1896 Dictionnaire des sourds-muets. Manuscript, ca. 1785, ed.J. A. A. Rattel, Collection ancienne et moderne d’otologie, 7. Paris: Laval.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ferrara, Casey & Donna Jo Napoli
    2019 Manual movement in sign languages: One hand versus two in communicating shapes. Cognitive Science43(9). e12741. 10.1111/cogs.12741
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12741 [Google Scholar]
  64. Ferrara, Lindsey & Rolf Piene Halvorsen
    2017 Depicting and describing meanings with iconic signs in Norwegian Sign Language. Gesture16(3). 371–395. 10.1075/gest.00001.fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00001.fer [Google Scholar]
  65. Ferrara, Lindsey & Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology91. 716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  66. Fischer, Susan D.
    1996 By the numbers: Language-internal evidence for creolization. InWilliam H. Edmondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur (eds.), International review of sign linguistics, 1–22. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Fitch, Allison, Sudha Arunachalam & Amy M. Lieberman
    2021 Mapping word to world in ASL: Evidence from a human simulation paradigm. Cognitive Science45(12). e13061. 10.1111/cogs.13061
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13061 [Google Scholar]
  68. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language51(3). 696–719. 10.2307/412894
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  69. Gama, Flausino José da
    1875 Iconografia dos signaes dos surdos-mudos [Iconography of deaf-mute signs]. Rio de Janeiro: Tipografia Universal de E. & H. Laemmert.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Geraci, Carlo, Katia Battaglia, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice & Emiliano Mereghetti
    2011 The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies171. 528–574. 10.1353/sls.2011.0011
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0011 [Google Scholar]
  71. Geraci, Carlo, Roland Pfau, Pietro Braione, Carlo Cecchetto & Josep Quer
    2019 Hidden languages in a digital world: The case of sign language archives. Journal of the Italian Association of Speech Sciences61. 31–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Gibson, Edward, Richard Futrell, Steven Piantadosi, Isabelle Dautriche, Kyle Mahowald, Leon Bergen & Roger Levy
    2019 How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences23(5). 389–407. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  73. Giustolisi, Beatrice, Emiliano Mereghetti & Carlo Cechetto
    2017 Phonological blending or code mixing? Why mouthing is not a core component of sign language grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory35(2). 347–365. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9353‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9353-9 [Google Scholar]
  74. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2014 Homesign. InPatricia Brooks & Vera Kempe (eds.), Encyclopedia of language development, 267–269. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Greenhill, Simon, Thomas Currie & Russell Gray
    2009 Does horizontal transmission invalidate cultural phylogenies?Proceedings of the Royal Society B276(1665). 2299–2306. 10.1098/rspb.2008.1944
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1944 [Google Scholar]
  76. Groce, Nora
    1985 Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674037953
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674037953 [Google Scholar]
  77. Guerra Currie, Anne-Marie Palacios
    1999 A Mexican Sign Language lexicon: Internal and cross-linguistic similarities and variation. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Guerra Currie, Anne-Marie Palacios, Richard Meier & Keith Walters
    2002 A crosslinguistic examination of the lexicons of four signed languages. InRichard Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 224–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.011 [Google Scholar]
  79. Hendriks, Bernadet & Shelley Dufoe
    2014 Non-native or native vocabulary in Mexican Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics17(1). 20–55. 10.1075/sll.17.1.02hen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.17.1.02hen [Google Scholar]
  80. Higgins, Daniel
    1923 How to talk to the deaf. Chicago: Paluch.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Hock, Hans
    2003 Analogical change. InBrian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 441–460. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch11
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  82. Hoiting, Nini & Dan Slobin
    2007 From gestures to signs in the acquisition of sign language. InSusan Duncan, Justine Cassell & Elena Levy (eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill, 51–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.1.06hoi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.1.06hoi [Google Scholar]
  83. International Visual Theater (IVT)
    International Visual Theater (IVT) 1986 La langue des signes: Dictionnaire bilingue LSF/français. Vol.11 1990; vol.21 1997 Vincennes: Centre socioculturel des sourds.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Janzen, Terry
    2012 Lexicalization and grammaticalization. InMarkus Steinbach, Roland Pfau & Bencie Woll (eds.), Handbook of sign languages, 816–840. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Janzen, Terry & Barbera Shaffer
    2002 Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. InRichard Meier, David Quinto-Pozos & Kearsy Cormier (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 199–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.010 [Google Scholar]
  86. Jespersen, Otto
    1909 A modern English grammar: On historical principles. Part I: Sounds and Spellings. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 1922 Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Johanson, Lars & Martine Robbeets
    (eds.) 2012 Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Johnson, Robert & Scott Liddell
    2012 Toward a phonetic representation of hand configuration: The thumb. Sign Language Studies12(2). 316–333. 10.1353/sls.2011.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0020 [Google Scholar]
  90. Johnston, Trevor
    1996 Function and medium in the forms of linguistic expression found in a sign language. International Review of Sign Linguistics11. 57–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(2). 115–185. 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  92. Joseph, Brian
    1987 On the use of iconic elements in etymological investigation: Some case studies from Greek. Diachronica4(1–2). 1–26. 10.1075/dia.4.1‑2.02jos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.4.1-2.02jos [Google Scholar]
  93. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda
    (eds.) 2003 The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756393
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393 [Google Scholar]
  94. Jullian Móntañes, Christian Giorgio
    2001 Génesis de la comunidad silente de México: La Escuela Nacional de Sordomudos (1867 a 1886) [The origin of Mexico’s mute community: National School of Deaf-Mutes (1867 to 1886)]. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Kegl, Judy
    2008 The case of signed languages in the context of pidgin and creole studies. InSilvia Kouwenberg & John Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creole studies, 491–511. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444305982.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444305982.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  96. Kirby, Simon, Tom Griffiths & Kenny Smith
    2014 Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology281. 108–114. 10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014 [Google Scholar]
  97. Kitzel, Mar
    2014 Chasing ancestors: Searching for the roots of American Sign Language in the Kentish Weald, 1620–1851. Falmer, UK: University of Sussex dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Klima, Edward & Ursula Bellugi
    1979 The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Kooij, Els van der
    2001 Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. InValery Dively, Melanie Metzger, Sarah Taub & Anne Marie Baer (eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, 27–42. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 2002 Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Phonetic implementation and iconic motivation. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Koplenig, Alexander, Sascha Wolfer & Peter Meyer
    2022 Human languages trade off complexity against efficiency. Accessed18 April 2023: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1462001/v1_covered.pdf?c=1669292456. 10.21203/rs.3.rs‑1462001/v1
     https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1462001/v1
  102. Kusters, Annelies & Ceil Lucas
    2022 Emergence and evolutions: Introducing sign language sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics26(1). 84–98. 10.1111/josl.12522
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12522 [Google Scholar]
  103. Labov, William
    1981 Resolving the Neogrammarian controversy. Language57(2). 267–308. 10.2307/413692
     https://doi.org/10.2307/413692 [Google Scholar]
  104. Lambert, Louis-Marie
    1865 Le langage de la physionomie et du geste mis à la portée de tous. Paris: Lecoffre.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Lane, Harlan
    1980 A chronology of the oppression of sign language in France and the United States. InHarlan Lane & François Grosjean (eds.), Recent perspectives on American Sign Language, 119–161. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Laveau, François
    1868 Catéchisme des sourds-muets illettrés que l’on ne peut pas instruire au moyen de l’écriture. Orléans, France: Constant.
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Lehmann, Winfred P.
    1962 Historical linguistics: An introduction. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Lehrer, Adrienne
    1985 The influence of semantic fields on semantic change. InJacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics – Historical word-formation, 283–296. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110850178.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.283 [Google Scholar]
  109. Lepic, Ryan
    2016 The great ASL compound hoax. Proceedings of the High Desert Linguistics Society Conference111. 227–250.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler
    2016 Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics19(1). 37–81. 10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep [Google Scholar]
  111. Leskien, August
    1876 Die Deklination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Levshina, Natalia
    2020 Efficient trade-offs as explanations in functional linguistics: Some problems and an alternative proposal. Revista da ABRALIN19(3). 50–78. 10.25189/rabralin.v19i3.1728
     https://doi.org/10.25189/rabralin.v19i3.1728 [Google Scholar]
  113. Liddell, Scott & Robert Johnson
    1986 American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory4(4). 445–513. 10.1007/BF00134470
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134470 [Google Scholar]
  114. Long, Joseph Schuyler
    1910 The Sign Language: A manual of signs. Being a descriptive vocabulary of signs used by the Deaf in the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Gibson Bros.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Loos, Cornelia & Donna Jo Napoli
    2021 Expanding echo: Coordinated head articulations as nonmanual enhancements in sign language phonology. Cognitive Science5(5). e12958. 10.1111/cogs.12958
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12958 [Google Scholar]
  116. Lucas, Ceil, Robert Bayley, Mary Rose & Alyssa Wulf
    2002 Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies2(4). 407–440. 10.1353/sls.2002.0020
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0020 [Google Scholar]
  117. Lucas, Ceil, Robert Bayley & Clayton Valli, in collaboration with Mary Rose, Alyssa Wulf, Paul Dudis, Susan Schatz & Laura Sanheim
    2009 Sociolinguistic variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2959
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2959 [Google Scholar]
  118. Luick, Karl
    1896 Untersuchungen zur englischen Lautgeschichte. Strassburg: Trübner. 10.1515/9783111494098
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111494098 [Google Scholar]
  119. Lupyan, Gary & Bodo Winter
    2018 Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B373(1752). 20170137. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0137
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137 [Google Scholar]
  120. Lupton, Linda & Joe Salmons
    1996 A re-analysis of the creole status of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies90(1). 80–94. 10.1353/sls.1996.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1996.0013 [Google Scholar]
  121. MacLaughlin, Dawn, Carol Neidle, Ben Bahan & Robert Lee
    2000 Morphological inflections and syntactic representations of person and number in ASL. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes291. 73–100. 10.4000/rlv.1199
     https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1199 [Google Scholar]
  122. Mak, Joe & Gladys Tang
    2011 Movement types, repetition, and feature organization in Hong Kong Sign Language. InRachel Channon & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Formational units in sign languages, 315–338. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Malaia, Evie & Ronnie Wilbur
    2012 Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech55(3). 407–421. 10.1177/0023830911422201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830911422201 [Google Scholar]
  124. Mandel, Mark
    1981 Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Mauk, Claude
    2003 Undershoot in two modalities: Evidence from fast speech and fast signing. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  126. McBurney, Susan
    2012 History of sign languages and sign language linguistics. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 909–948. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.909
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.909 [Google Scholar]
  127. McCaskill, Carolyn, Ceil Lucas, Robert Bayley & Joseph Hill, in collaboration with Roxanne King, Pamela Baldwin & Randall Hogue
    2011 The hidden treasure of Black ASL: Its history and structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. McKee, David & Graeme Kennedy
    2000 Lexical comparison of signs from American, Australian, British, and New Zealand Sign Languages. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 43–73. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. McKee, Rachel & David McKee
    2011 Old signs, new signs, whose signs? Sociolinguistic variation in the NZSL lexicon. Sign Language Studies11(4). 485–527. 10.1353/sls.2011.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  130. McNeill, David
    1992 Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. (ed.) 2000 Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850 [Google Scholar]
  132. Mechsner, Franz, Dirk Kerzel, Günther Knoblich & Wolfgang Prinz
    2001 Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature414(6859). 69–73. 10.1038/35102060
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35102060 [Google Scholar]
  133. Meier, Richard, Claude Mauk, Adrianne Cheek & Christopher Moreland
    2008 The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants?Language Learning and Development4(1). 63–98. 10.1080/15475440701377618
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15475440701377618 [Google Scholar]
  134. Meir, Irit
    2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language86(4). 865–896. 10.1353/lan.2010.0044
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0044 [Google Scholar]
  135. Michaels, John
    1923 A handbook of the sign language of the deaf. Atlanta: Home Mission Board, Southern Baptist Convention.
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Mirus, Gene, Jami Fisher & Donna Jo Napoli
    2020 (Sub)lexical changes in iconic signs to realign with community sensibilities and experiences. Language in Society49(2). 283–309. 10.1017/S0047404519000745
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404519000745 [Google Scholar]
  137. Mirus, Gene, Christian Rathmann & Richard Meier
    2001 Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. InValerie Dively, Melanie Metzger, Sarah Taub & Anne Marie Baer (eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, 103–119. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Mithun, Marianne
    1982 The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs, and moans. International Journal of American Linguistics48(1). 49–58. 10.1086/465712
     https://doi.org/10.1086/465712 [Google Scholar]
  139. Moita, Mara, Ema Gonçalves, Conceição Medeiros & Ana Mineiro
    2018 A phonological diachronic study on Portuguese Sign Language of the Azores. Sign Language Studies19(1). 138–162. 10.1353/sls.2018.0030
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0030 [Google Scholar]
  140. Moser, Margaret
    1990 The regularity hypothesis applied to ASL. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 50–56. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Münte, Thomas, Kolja Schiltz & Marta Kutas
    1998 When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature395(6697). 71–73. 10.1038/25731
     https://doi.org/10.1038/25731 [Google Scholar]
  142. Napoli, Donna Jo
    2017 Iconicity chains in sign languages. InClaire Bowern, Laurence Horn & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), On looking into words (and beyond): Structures, relations, analyses, 517–546. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Napoli, Donna Jo & Casey Ferrara
    2021 Correlations between handshape and movement in sign languages. Cognitive Science45(5). 12944. 10.1111/cogs.12944
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12944 [Google Scholar]
  144. Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis
    2019 Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science31. 31–61. 10.1007/s41809‑019‑00027‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00027-3 [Google Scholar]
  145. Napoli, Donna Jo & Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2014 Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology51. 376. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376 [Google Scholar]
  146. 2021 Clause-initial Vs in sign languages: Scene-setters. InVera Lee-Schoenfeld & Dennis Ott (eds.), Parameters of predicate fronting, 198–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197545553.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197545553.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  147. Napoli, Donna Jo, Mark Mai & Nicholas Gaw
    2011 Primary movement in sign languages: A study of six languages. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rr3d8n
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rr3d8n [Google Scholar]
  148. Napoli, Donna Jo & Jeff Wu
    2003 Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language: Notions of symmetry. Sign Language & Linguistics6(2). 123–205. 10.1075/sll.6.2.03nap
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.2.03nap [Google Scholar]
  149. Napoli, Donna Jo, Nathan Sanders & Rebecca Wright
    2014 On the linguistic effects of articulatory ease, with a focus on sign languages. Language90(2). 424–456. 10.1353/lan.2014.0026
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0026 [Google Scholar]
  150. Napoli, Donna Jo, Rachel Sutton-Spence & Ronice Müller de Quadros
    2017 Influence of predicate sense on word order in sign languages: Intensional and extensional verbs. Language93(3). 641–670. 10.1353/lan.2017.0039
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0039 [Google Scholar]
  151. Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Ben Bahan & Robert Lee
    2000 The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2–3). 143–176. 10.1177/00238309990420020201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  153. Noberto, Mércia Creuza Lucas de Morais, Maria do Socorro Santos Pompeu, Roselita Alves Dias Felipe, Rozana Alves dos Santos Oliveira & Geilsa Medeiros Costa
    2014 Breve histórico da educação especial no Brasil no ensino regular [A brief history of special education in Brazil in regular education]. Revista Brasileira de Educação e Saúde4(1). 46–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill Morford
    2017 Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity. Gesture16(1). 100–126. 10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ [Google Scholar]
  155. Orfanidou, Eleni, Robert Adam, James McQueen & Gary Morgan
    2009 Making sense of nonsense in British Sign Language (BSL): The contribution of different phonological parameters to sign recognition. Memory & Cognition37(3). 302–315. 10.3758/MC.37.3.302
     https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.3.302 [Google Scholar]
  156. Ormel, Ellen, Onno Crasborn, Gerrit Jan Kootstra & Anne de Meijer
    2017 Coarticulation of handshape in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology8(1). 1–21. 10.5334/labphon.45
     https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.45 [Google Scholar]
  157. Ortega, Gerardo
    2017 Iconicity and sign lexical acquisition: A review. Frontiers in Psychology81. 1280. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01280 [Google Scholar]
  158. Osthoff, Hermann & Karl Brugman
    1878 Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Padden, Carol
    2011 Sign language geography. InGaurav Mathur & Donna Jo Napoli (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 19–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Padden, Carol & David Perlmutter
    1987 American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory5(3). 335–375. 10.1007/BF00134553
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134553 [Google Scholar]
  161. Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson
    2013 Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture13(3). 287–308. 10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad [Google Scholar]
  162. Pélissier, Pierre
    1856 Iconographie des signes faisant partie de l’enseignement des sourdsmuets. Paris: Dupont.
     [Google Scholar]
  163. Périn, Philomène, Santiago Herrera, Frédéric Isel & Caroline Bogliotti
    2023 FLexSign: A lexical database in French Sign Language (LSF). https://feast2023.github.io/abstracts/Perin%20et%20al.pdf
  164. Perniss, Pamela & Aslı Özyürek
    2008 Representations of action, motion, and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) Sign Language narratives. InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8, 353–378. Hamburg: Seedorf Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Perniss, Pamela, Robin Thomson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1(227). 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  166. Perniss, Pamela, Jenny Lu, Gary Morgan & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2018 Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science21(2). e12551. 10.1111/desc.12551
     https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551 [Google Scholar]
  167. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2006 Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. InHeiner Drenhaus, Ruben van de Vijver & Ralf Vogel (eds.), Linguistics in Potsdam241, 5–98. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  168. Pietrandrea, Paola & Tommaso Russo
    2007 Diagrammatic and imagic hypoicons in signed and verbal languages. InElena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 35–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Pinna, Paola, Laura Pagliari Rampelli, Paolo Rossini & Virginia Volterra
    1994 Written and unwritten history of a residential school for the deaf in Rome, Italy. InCarol Erting, Robert Johnson, Dorothy Smith & Bruce Snider (eds.), The Deaf way: Perspectives from the International Conference on Deaf Culture, 194–202. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  170. Pizzuto, Elena & Virginia Volterra
    2000 Iconicity and transparency in sign language: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), Signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 261–286. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  171. Pizzuto, Elena, Emanuela Cameracanna, Serena Corazza & Virginia Volterra
    1995 Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language. InRaffaele Simone (ed.), Iconicity in language, 237–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.110.17piz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.110.17piz [Google Scholar]
  172. Poizner, Howard
    1983 Perception of movement in American Sign Language: Effects of linguistic structure and linguistic experience. Perception & Psychophysics331. 215–231. 10.3758/BF03202858
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202858 [Google Scholar]
  173. Poizner, Howard, Diane Brentari, Martha Tyrone & Judy Kegl
    2000 The structure of language as motor behavior: Clues from signers with Parkinson’s disease. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 432–452. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  174. Power, Justin
    2022 Historical linguistics of sign languages: Progress and problems. Frontiers in Psychology131. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818753
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818753 [Google Scholar]
  175. Power, Justin, Guido Grimm & Johann-Mattis List
    2020 Evolutionary dynamics in the dispersal of sign languages. Royal Society Open Science7(1). 191100. 10.1098/rsos.191100
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191100 [Google Scholar]
  176. Power, Justin, David Quinto-Pozos & Danny Law
    2021 Methods and models in historical comparative research on signed languages. www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~gjaeger/maeiqcl21/slides/poweretal.pdf
  177. Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Ritva Takkinen, Tuija Wainio & Outi Pippuri
    2014 Taking non-manuality into account in collecting and analyzing Finnish Sign Language video data. InOnno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen, & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Beyond the manual channel: 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 143–148. Paris: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  178. Pyykkönen, Pirita & Juhani Järvikivi
    2012 Children and situation models of multiple events. Developmental Psychology48(2). 521–529. 10.1037/a0025526
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025526 [Google Scholar]
  179. Quadros, Ronice Müller de & Ana Regina e Souza Campello
    2010 Constituição política, social e cultural da Língua Brasileira de Sinais [Political, social and cultural constitution of Brazilian Sign Language]. InLucyenne Matos da Costa Vieira-Machado & Maura Corcini Lopes (eds.), Educação de surdos: Políticas, língua de sinais, comunidade e cultura surda, 15–47. Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil: EDUNISC.
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Quartararo, Anne
    2008 The poetry of a minority community: Deaf poet Pierre Pélissier and the formation of a deaf identity in the 1850s. Sign Language Studies8(3). 241–263. 10.1353/sls.2008.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2008.0008 [Google Scholar]
  181. Quer, Josep & Roc Boronat
    2016 D4.4 First SIGN-HUB Conference. https://www.unive.it/pag/fileadmin/user_upload/progetti_ricerca/sign-hub/documenti/Resources/D4.4_First_SIGN-HUB_Conference.pdf
  182. 2017 D4.6 Second SIGN-HUB Conference. https://www.unive.it/pag/fileadmin/user_upload/progetti_ricerca/sign-hub/documenti/Resources/D4.6_Second_SIGN-HUB_Conference.pdf
  183. Quer, Josep, Laura Mazzoni & Galini Sapountzaki
    2010 Transmission of sign languages in Mediterranean Europe. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 95–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.006 [Google Scholar]
  184. Quinto-Pozos, David
    2006 Contact between Mexican Sign Language (LSM) and American Sign Language (ASL) in two Texas border areas. Sign Language & Linguistics7(2). 215–219. 10.1075/sll.7.2.13qui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.2.13qui [Google Scholar]
  185. 2008 Sign language contact and interference: ASL and LSM. Language in Society371. 161–189. 10.1017/S0047404508080251
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080251 [Google Scholar]
  186. Quinto-Pozos, David & Robert Adam
    2015 Sign languages in contact. InAdam Schembri & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistics and deaf communities, 29–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107280298.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107280298.003 [Google Scholar]
  187. Radden, Günter
    2021 Iconicity. InWen Xu & John R. Taylor (eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 268–296. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑19
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-19 [Google Scholar]
  188. Radutzky, Elena
    1989 La lingua dei segni italiana: Historical change in the sign language of deaf people in Italy. New York: New York University dissertation.
  189. (ed.) 1992 Dizionario bilingue elementare della lingua italiana dei segni: Oltre 2.500 significati [Basic bilingual dictionary of Italian Sign Language: More than 2,500 signs]. Rome: Edizioni Kappa.
     [Google Scholar]
  190. Ramsey, Claire & David Quinto-Pozos
    2010 Transmission of sign languages in Latin America. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 46–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.004 [Google Scholar]
  191. Reddy, Michael
    1979 The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 284–297. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  192. Roccaforte, Maria
    2018 Le componenti orali della lingua dei segni italiana: Analisi linguistica, indagini sperimentali e implicazioni glottodidattiche [The oral components of Italian Sign Language: Linguistic analysis, experimental investigations and implications for language teaching]. Rome: Sapienza Università di Roma dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  193. Rundblad, Gabriella & David B. Kronenfeld
    2000 Folk-etymology: Haphazard perversion or shrewd analogy?InJulie Coleman & Christian J. Kay (eds.), Lexicology, semantics, and lexicography, 19–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.194.05run
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.194.05run [Google Scholar]
  194. Russell, Kevin, Erin Wilkinson & Terry Janzen
    2011 ASL sign lowering as undershoot: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology2(2). 403–422. 10.1515/labphon.2011.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/labphon.2011.015 [Google Scholar]
  195. Russo, Tommaso
    2004 Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: An analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies4(2). 164–197. 10.1353/sls.2004.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0006 [Google Scholar]
  196. Sanders, Nathan & Donna Jo Napoli
    2016a A cross-linguistic preference for torso stability in the lexicon: Evidence from 24 sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics19(2). 197–231. 10.1075/sll.19.2.02san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.2.02san [Google Scholar]
  197. 2016b Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language92(2). 275–297. 10.1353/lan.2016.0032
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0032 [Google Scholar]
  198. Sandler, Wendy
    1989 Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110250473
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250473 [Google Scholar]
  199. 1993 A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology10(2). 243–279. 10.1017/S0952675700000051
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000051 [Google Scholar]
  200. 1999 Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. InAlan Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.174.09san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.174.09san [Google Scholar]
  201. 2017 The challenge of sign language phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics31. 43–63. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011516‑034122
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034122 [Google Scholar]
  202. Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden
    2011 The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29(2). 503–543. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9128‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 [Google Scholar]
  203. Schembri, Adam, Jordan Fenlon, Kearsy Cormier & Trevor Johnston
    2018 Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology91. 200. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00200 [Google Scholar]
  204. Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier, Trevor Johnston, David McKee, Rachel McKee & Bencie Woll
    2010 Sociolinguistic variation in British, Australian and New Zealand sign languages. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages, 476–498. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.022
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.022 [Google Scholar]
  205. Schembri, Adam, David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac, Trevor Johnston & Della Goswell
    2009 Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change21(2). 193–231. 10.1017/S0954394509990081
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990081 [Google Scholar]
  206. Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova & Karen Emmorey
    2019 The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: Evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition11(2). 208–234. 10.1017/langcog.2019.18
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.18 [Google Scholar]
  207. Shaffer, Barbara
    2002 CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies3(1). 34–53. 10.1353/sls.2002.0026
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0026 [Google Scholar]
  208. Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte
    2011 New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies11(2). 158–204. 10.1353/sls.2010.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2010.0006 [Google Scholar]
  209. 2015 A historical and etymological dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2938
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2938 [Google Scholar]
  210. Sicard, Roch
    1808 Théorie des signes ou introduction à l’étude des langues, où le sens des mots, au lieu d’être défini, est mis en action. 21vols. Paris: Institution des sourds-muets.
     [Google Scholar]
  211. Siedlecki, Theodore & John Bonvillian
    1993 Phonological deletion revisited: Errors in young children’s two-handed signs. Sign Language Studies801. 223–242. 10.1353/sls.1993.0000
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1993.0000 [Google Scholar]
  212. SIGN-HUB
    SIGN-HUB 2016–2019 SIGN-HUB: Preserving, researching and fostering the linguistic, historical and cultural heritage of European Deaf signing communities with an integral resource. www.sign-hub.eu, accessed20 August 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  213. Simons, Gary & Charles Fennig
    (eds.) 2019 Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 22nd edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online. https://www.ethnologue.com, accessed15 April 2019.
     [Google Scholar]
  214. Siple, Patricia
    1978 Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies191. 95–110. 10.1353/sls.1978.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0010 [Google Scholar]
  215. Siu, Wai Yan Rebecca
    2016 Sociolinguistic variation in Hong Kong sign language. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University of Wellington dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  216. Slonimska, Anita, Aslı Özyürek & Olga Capirci
    2020 The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: The case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition2001. 104246. 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246 [Google Scholar]
  217. 2021 Using depiction for efficient communication in LIS (Italian Sign Language). Language and Cognition13(3). 367–396. 10.1017/langcog.2021.7
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.7 [Google Scholar]
  218. 2022 Simultaneity as an emergent property of efficient communication in language: A comparison of silent gesture and sign language. Cognitive Science. 46(5). e13133. 10.1111/cogs.13133
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13133 [Google Scholar]
  219. 2023 Communicative efficiency in sign languages: The role of the visual modality-specific properties. Paper presented at the16th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Available athttps://hartmast.github.io/iclc16/abstracts/ICLC16_paper_325.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  220. Sofiato, Cassia Geciauskas
    2011 Do desenho à litografia: A origem da língua brasileira de sinais [From drawing to lithography: The origin of Brazilian Sign Language]. Campinas, Brazil: Universidade Estadual de Campinas dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  221. Spreadthesign
    Spreadthesign 2006–2023 Spreadthesign. https://www.spreadthesign.com/. Accessed13 April 2023.
     [Google Scholar]
  222. Stamp, Rose
    2015 Sociolinguistic variation, language change and contact in the British Sign Language (BSL) lexicon. Sign Language & Linguistics18(1). 158–166. 10.1075/sll.18.1.08sta
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.1.08sta [Google Scholar]
  223. Stevens, Kelly
    1923 Young Hindu educator follows father’s example. The Silent Worker35(6). 221.
     [Google Scholar]
  224. Supalla, Ted
    2001 Making historical sign language materials accessible: A prototype database of early ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics4(1/2). 285–297. 10.1075/sll.4.12.20sup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.12.20sup [Google Scholar]
  225. 2004 The validity of the Gallaudet lecture films. Sign Language Studies4(3). 261–292. 10.1353/sls.2004.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0014 [Google Scholar]
  226. 2013 The role of historical research in building a model of sign language typology, variation, and change. InRitsuko Kikusawa & Lawrence A. Reid (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2011: Selected papers from the 20th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Osaka, 25–30 July 2011 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 326), 15–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/cilt.326.04sup
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.326.04sup [Google Scholar]
  227. Supalla, Ted & Patricia Clark
    2015 Sign language archaeology: Understanding the historical roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rcng45
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rcng45 [Google Scholar]
  228. Supalla, Ted, Fanny Limousin & Betsy Hicks McDonald
    2020 Historical change in American Sign Language. InRichard Janda, Brian Joseph & Barbara Vance (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 423–446. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing. 10.1002/9781118732168.ch20
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118732168.ch20 [Google Scholar]
  229. Tabak, John
    2006 Significant gestures: A history of American Sign Language. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 10.5040/9798216014669
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9798216014669 [Google Scholar]
  230. Tai, James
    1985 Temporal sequence and Chinese word order. InJohn Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 49–72. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.04tai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.04tai [Google Scholar]
  231. Taub, Sarah
    2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  232. The Hearing Review
    The Hearing Review 2019 RIT researchers study changes in Nicaraguan Sign Language over four decades. https://www.hearingreview.com/inside-hearing/research/rit-researchers-study-changes-nicaraguan-sign-language-four-decades
  233. Thompson, Robin, David Vinson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition36(4). 1017–1027.
     [Google Scholar]
  234. Thompson, Robin, David Vinson, Bencie Woll & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2012 The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science23(12). 1443–1448. 10.1177/0956797612459763
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459763 [Google Scholar]
  235. Tkachman, Oksana, Gracellia Purnomo & Bryan Gick
    2018 Cyclic movement primitives underlying two-handed alternating signs in signed languages. Canadian Acoustics46(4). 24–27. 10.1121/1.5068104
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5068104 [Google Scholar]
  236. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2012 Pragmatics and language change. InKasia Jaszczolt & Keith Allan (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 549–566. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030 [Google Scholar]
  237. Tyrone, Martha & Claude Mauk
    2010 Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics38(2). 317–328. 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  238. Uyechi, Linda
    1996 The geometry of visual phonology (Dissertations in Linguistics Series). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  239. Valentine, Gill & Tracey Skelton
    2008 Changing spaces: The role of the internet in shaping Deaf geographies. Social & Cultural Geography9(5). 469–485. 10.1080/14649360802175691
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802175691 [Google Scholar]
  240. 2009 ‘AN UMBILICAL CORD TO THE WORLD’: The role of the Internet in D/deaf people’s information and communication practices. Information, Communication & Society12(1). 44–65. 10.1080/13691180802158573
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802158573 [Google Scholar]
  241. Verhoef, Tessa, Simon Kirby & Bart de Boer
    2016 Iconicity and the emergence of combinatorial structure in language. Cognitive Science40(8). 1969–1994. 10.1111/cogs.12326
     https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12326 [Google Scholar]
  242. Vinson, David, Kearsy Cormier, Tanya Denmark, Adam Schembri & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2008 The British Sign Language (BSL) norms for age of acquisition, familiarity and iconicity. Behavior Research Methods401. 1079–1087. 10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1079 [Google Scholar]
  243. Volterra, Virginia & Elizabeth Bates
    1989 Selective impairment of Italian grammatical morphology in the congenitally deaf: A case study. Cognitive Neuropsychology6(3). 273–308. 10.1080/02643298908253421
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02643298908253421 [Google Scholar]
  244. Wilbur, Ronnie
    1979 American Sign Language and sign systems. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  245. 2005 A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. InBernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 595–624. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110911466.595
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911466.595 [Google Scholar]
  246. 2008 Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?. InJosep Quer (ed.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, 217–250. Seedorf: Signum.
     [Google Scholar]
  247. 2017 The linguistic description of American Sign Language. InHarlan Lane & François Grosjean (eds.), Recent perspectives on American Sign Language, 7–31. New York: Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203762974‑2
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203762974-2 [Google Scholar]
  248. Wilbur, Ronnie & Lesa Petersen
    1997 Backwards signing and ASL syllable structure. Language and Speech40(1). 63–90. 10.1177/002383099704000104
     https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000104 [Google Scholar]
  249. Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin
    2000 Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  250. Wilcox, Sherman
    2004 Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 119–147. 10.1515/cogl.2004.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  251. Wilcox, Sherman & Corrine Occhino
    2016 Historical change in signed languages. Oxford handbooks online. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.24
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.24 [Google Scholar]
  252. Winter, Bodo, Marcus Perlman, Lynn Perry & Gary Lupyan
    2017 Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies18(3). 443–464. 10.1075/is.18.3.07win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.07win [Google Scholar]
  253. Wittmann, Henri
    1991 Classification linguistique des langues signées non vocalement. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée10(1). 215–288.
     [Google Scholar]
  254. Woll, Bencie & Jechil Sieratzki
    1998 Echo phonology: Signs of a link between gesture and speech. Behavioral and Brain Sciences21(4). 531–532. 10.1017/S0140525X98481263
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98481263 [Google Scholar]
  255. Woll, Bencie, Rachel Sutton-Spence & Frances Elton
    2001 Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. InCeil Lucas (ed.), The sociolinguistics of sign languages, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612824.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612824.004 [Google Scholar]
  256. Woodward, James
    1978 Historical bases of American Sign Language. InPatricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 333–348. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  257. 1993 The relationship of sign language varieties in India, Pakistan, & Nepal. Sign Language Studies78(1). 15–22. 10.1353/sls.1993.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1993.0010 [Google Scholar]
  258. 2011 Some observations on research methodology in lexicostatistical studies of sign languages. InGaurav Mathur & Donna Jo Napoli (eds.), Deaf around the world: The impact of language, 38–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  259. Xavier, André & Regiane Pinheiro Agrella
    2015 Brazilian sign language (Libras). InJulie Bakken Jepsen, Goedele De Clerck, Sam Lutalo-Kiingi & William McGregor (eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, 129–158. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614518174‑010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518174-010 [Google Scholar]
  260. Xavier, André & Sherman Wilcox
    2014 Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Linguistic Typology18(3). 449–488. 10.1515/lingty‑2014‑0019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0019 [Google Scholar]
  261. Yu, Shi, Carlo Geraci & Natasha Abner
    2018 Sign languages and the online world: Online dictionaries & lexicostatistics. InNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Koiti Hasida, Hitoshi Isahara, inter alia & Takenobu Tokunaga (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), 4235–4240. Miyazaki, Japan: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  262. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2003 Indo-Pakistani Sign Language grammar: A typological outline. Sign Language Studies3(2). 157–212. 10.1353/sls.2003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  263. 2015 “Making meaning”: Communication between sign language users without a shared language. Cognitive Linguistics26(2). 211–260. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0011 [Google Scholar]
  264. Zimmer, June
    2000 Toward a description of register variation in American Sign Language. InClayton Valli & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Linguistics of American Sign Language: An introduction, 429–442. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
Loading
An approach to path movement in the diachronic study of sign languages
Diachronica 41, 203 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
/content/journals/10.1075/dia.23033.nap
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): articulatory effort; historical change; nonarbitrariness; sign languages

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error