1887
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

For years, the study of spoken languages, on the basis of written and then also oral productions, was the only way to investigate the human language capacity. As an introduction to this first volume of devoted to the comparison of spoken and signed languages, we propose to look at the reasons for the late emergence of the consideration of signed languages and multimodality in language studies. Next, the main stages of the history of sign language research are summarized. We highlight the benefits of studying cross-modal and multimodal data, as opposed to the isolated investigation of signed or spoken languages, and point out the remaining methodological obstacles to this approach. This contextualization prefaces the presentation of the outline of the volume.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00024.gab
2022-08-23
2022-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auchlin, A., Filliettaz, L., Grobert, A. and Simon, A. C.
    2004 (En)action, expérienciation du discours et prosodie. Cahiers de linguistique française26: 217–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., Pfau, R. and Schermer, T.
    2016The Linguistics of Sign Languages. An Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, A., Van Den Bogaerde, B. and Crasborn, O.
    2003Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barberà, G. and Zwets, M.
    2013 Pointing and Reference in Sign Language and Spoken Language: Anchoring vs. Identifying. Sign Language Studies13(4): 491–515. 10.1353/sls.2013.0016
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2013.0016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benveniste, E.
    1966Problèmes de linguistique générale (Vol.1). Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bressem, J., Ladewig, S. and Müller, C.
    2018 Ways of Expressing Action in Multimodal Narrations ― The Semiotic Complexity of Character Viewpoint Depictions. InLinguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages, A. Hübl and M. Steinbach (eds), 223–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.247.10bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.10bre [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolly, C. T., and Boutet, D.
    2018 The Multimodal CorpAGEst Corpus: Keeping an Eye on Pragmatic Competence in Later Life. Corpora13(2): 1–39. 10.3366/cor.2018.0151
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0151 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brône, G. and Oben, B.
    2015 InSight Interaction: A Multimodal and Multifocal Dialogue Corpus. Language Resources & Evaluation49: 195–214. 10.1007/s10579‑014‑9283‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-014-9283-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2016 Depicting as a Method of Communication. Psychological Review123(3): 324–347. 10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, H. and Gerrig, R.
    1990 Quotations as Demonstrations. Language66: 764–805. 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  12. Crible, L.
    2019Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency. Forms and Functions across Languages and Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Crible, L. and Gabarró-López, S.
    2021 Coherence Relations across Speech and Sign Language. A Comparable Corpus Study of Additive Connectives. Languages in Contrast21(1): 58–81. 10.1075/lic.19010.cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.19010.cri [Google Scholar]
  14. Cuxac, C.
    2007 Une manière de reformuler en langue des signes française. La linguistique43: 117–128. 10.3917/ling.431.0117
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ling.431.0117 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dancygier, B. and Sweetser, E.
    2012Viewpoint in language: A multimodal Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727 [Google Scholar]
  16. De Brabanter, P.
    2010 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Hybrid Quotations. Language and Linguistics Compass4: 107–120. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00185.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00185.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Dresher, E. and van der Hulst, H.
    eds to appear. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ducrot, O.
    1984Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Earis, H. and Cormier, K.
    2013 Point of View in British Sign Language and Spoken English Narrative Discourse: The Example of the Tortoise and the Hare. Language and Cognition5(4): 313–343. 10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  20. Emmorey, K.
    2002 15. The Effects of Modality on Spatial Language: How Signers and Speakers Talk about Space. InModality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, D. Quinto-Pozos (eds), 405–421. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.019 [Google Scholar]
  21. Enfield, N. J.
    2009The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
  22. Engberg-Pedersen, E.
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, V. and Green, M.
    2006Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fenlon, J., Cooperrider, K., Keane, J., Brentari, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S.
    2019 Comparing Sign Language and Gesture: Insights from Pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics4(1):1–26. 10.5334/gjgl.499
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.499 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferrara, L. and Johnston, T.
    2014 Elaborating who’s what: A Study of Constructed Action and Clause Structure in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics34(2): 193–215. 10.1080/07268602.2014.887405
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.887405 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferrara, L. and Hodge, G.
    2018 Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology9(716):1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  27. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. and Santos, D.
    2003 Introducing COMPARA, the Portuguese-English Parallel Corpus. InCorpora in Translator Education, F. Zanettin, S. Bernardini and D. Stewart (eds), 71–88. Manchester: St Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gabarró-López, S.
    2018CorMILS: Pilot multimodal corpus of French – French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) interpreters. Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet, Sweden, LSFB-Lab, Université de Namur, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    2017 Embodiment. InCambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, B. Dancygier (ed.), 449–462. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.028
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.028 [Google Scholar]
  30. Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A.
    2020 Introduction. A Two-Pronged Approach to Corpus-Based Crosslinguistic Studies. Languages in Contrast20(2): 167–183. 10.1075/lic.00014.int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00014.int [Google Scholar]
  31. Gumperz, J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hanke, T., König, L., Wagner, S. and Matthes, S.
    2010 DGS Corpus & Dicta-Sign: The Hamburg Studio Setup. Workshop Proceedings. W13. FourthWorkshop on Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies. Valletta, Malta, 19–21May 2010 European Language Resources Association. 106–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S. and Steiner, E.
    2012Cross-Linguistic Corpora for the Study of Translations. Insights from the Language Pair English-German. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110260328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110260328 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hasselgård, H.
    2020 Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies. Beginnings, Developments and Directions. Languages in Contrast20(2): 184–208. 10.1075/lic.00015.has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00015.has [Google Scholar]
  35. Hockett, C. F.
    1978 In Search of Jove’s Brow. American Speech53: 243–313. 10.2307/455140
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455140 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hodge, G., Sekine, K., Schembri, A. and Johnston, T.
    2019 Comparing Signers and Speakers: Building a Directly Comparable Corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora14(1): 63–76. 10.3366/cor.2019.0161
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2019.0161 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hostetter, A. and Alibali, M. W.
    2019 Gesture as Simulated Action: Revisiting the Framework. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review26: 721–752. 10.3758/s13423‑018‑1548‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1548-0 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hunyadi, L., Váradi, T., Szekrényes, I., Kovács, G., Kiss, H. and Takács, K.
    2018 Human-Human, Human-Machine Communication: On the HuComTech Multimodal Corpus. Proceedings of the Seventh CLARIN Annual Conference. Pisa, Italy, 8–10October 2018 6–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Janzen, T.
    2004 Space Rotation, Perspective Shift, and Verb Morphology in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics15(2): 149–174. 10.1515/cogl.2004.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Johansson, S.
    2007Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.26 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012 Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths, M. Kytö (ed.), 45–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Johnston, T., Vermeerbergen, M., Schembri, A. and Leeson, L.
    2007 Real Data are Messy: Considering Cross-Linguistic Analysis of Constituent Ordering in Australian Sign Language (Auslan), Vlamse Gebarantaal (VGT), and Irish Sign Language (ISL). InVisible Variation: Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure, P. Perniss, R. Pfau and M. Steinbach (eds), 163–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnston, T.
    2010 From Archive to Corpus: Transcription and Annotation in the Creation of Signed Language Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15(1): 106–131. 10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.1.05joh [Google Scholar]
  44. 2016Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines. Macquarie University, Sydney; La Trobe University, Melbourne. https://media.auslan.org.au/attachments/Auslan_Corpus_Annotation_Guidelines_November2016.pdf [last accessed7 November 2021].
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kendon, A.
    1986 Some Reasons for Studying Gesture. Semiotica62(1–2): 3–28. Available atsci-hub.tw/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.3. 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1‑2.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.3 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2004Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2010 Language and Gesture: Unity or Duality?InLanguage and Gesture, D. McNeil (ed.), 47–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850.004 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2014 Semiotic Diversity in Utterance Production and the Concept of ‘Language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B369: 1–13. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0293
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0293 [Google Scholar]
  49. Klima, E. and Bellugi, U.
    1979The Signs of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Konrad, R.
    2012Sign Language Corpora Survey [June 2012 version]. Available atwww.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/dgs-korpus/index.php/sl-corpora.html [last accessed23 August 21].
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kunz, K. and Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    2015 Crosslinguistic Analysis of Discourse Variation across Registers. Nordic Journal of English Studies14(1): 258–288. 10.35360/njes.347
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.347 [Google Scholar]
  52. Levinson, S. C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  53. Liddell, S.
    2003Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lillo-Martin, D.
    1995 The Point of View Predicate in American Sign Language. InLanguage, Gesture and Space, K. Emmorey and J. Rilley (eds), 155–170. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lucas, C. and Valli, C.
    1992Language Contact in the American Deaf Community. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lucas, C., Bayley, R. and Valli, C.
    2001Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612824
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612824 [Google Scholar]
  57. MacWhinney, B.
    2013 The Emergence of Language from Embodiment. InThe Emergence of Language, B. MacWhinney (ed.), 213–256. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410602367‑13
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602367-13 [Google Scholar]
  58. McEnery, T. and Hardie, A.
    2012Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. McEnery, T. and Wilson, A.
    2001 Corpus Linguistics (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. McNeill, David
    1992Hand and Mind. What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Meurant, L.
    2015Corpus LSFB. First Digital Open Access Corpus of Movies and Annotations of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). University of Namur, LSFB-Lab. Available atwww.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Meurant, L., Lepeut, A., Tavier, A., Vandenitte, S., Lombart, C., Gabarró-López, S. and Sinte, A.
    Ongoing. The Multimodal FRAPé Corpus: Towards Building a Comparable LSFB and Belgian French Corpus.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Meurant, L., Lepeut, A., Vandenitte, S. and Lombart, C.
    submitted. The Multimodal FRAPé Corpus: Towards Building a Comparable LSFB and Belgian French Corpus. Corpora.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Meurant, L. and Sinte, A.
    2016 La reformulation en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Narration, explication, conversation. L'information grammaticale149: 32–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Metzger, M.
    1995 Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language. InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed.), 255–271. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Niederhoff, B.
    2013 Perspective – Point of View. InThe Living Handbook of Narratology, P. Hühn, J. C. Meister, J. Pier and W. Schmid (eds). Hamburg: Hamburg University. Available athttps://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/printpdf/article/perspective-%E2%80%93-point-view
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D. and Tassendorf, S.
    (eds) 2013Body ― Language ― Communication, Volume 1. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261318
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318 [Google Scholar]
  68. (eds) 2014Body ― Language ― Communication, Volume 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110302028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302028 [Google Scholar]
  69. Müller, C.
    2018 Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?Frontiers in Psychology9(1651): 1–20. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651 [Google Scholar]
  70. Notarrigo, I.
    2017 Marqueurs de (dis)fluence en langue des signes de Belgique francophone. PhD Thesis, Université de Namur.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Padden, C.
    1986 Verbs and Role-Shifting in American Sign Language. Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, C. Padden (ed.), 44–57. Silver Spring: National Association of the Deaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Parisot, A.-M., Pilarski, A., Richer-Lemay, L., Rinfret, J. and Voghel, A.
    2008 Description de la variation du marquage spatial en Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ). Paper presented at the76e Congrès de l’Acfas, Canada, 5–9 May 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Paggio, P., Allwood, J., Ahlsén, E. and Jokinen, K.
    2010 The NOMCO Multimodal Nordic Resource: Goals and Characteristics. Proceedings of the Sixth international Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2010). Valetta, Malta, 17–23May 2010 2968–2973.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Parrill, F.
    2010 Viewpoint in Speech-Gesture Integration: Linguistic Structure, Discourse Structure, and Event Structure. Language and Cognitive Processes25(5): 650–668. 10.1080/01690960903424248
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903424248 [Google Scholar]
  75. Peirce, C. S.
    1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Mineola: Dover.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Perniss, P.
    2018 Why we should Study Multimodal Language. Frontiers in Psychology9(1109):1–5. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01109
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01109 [Google Scholar]
  77. Perniss, P. M., Pfau, R. and Steinbach, M.
    (eds) 2007Visible Variation: Cross-Linguistic Studies in Sign Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198850
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198850 [Google Scholar]
  78. Quinto-Pozos, D.
    2002 Contact between Mexican Sign Language and American Sign Language in Two Texas Border Areas. PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Quinto-Pozos, D. and Parrill, F.
    2015 Signers and Co-Speech Gesturers Adopt Similar Strategies for Portraying Viewpoint in Narratives. Topics in Cognitive Science7(1): 12–35. 10.1111/tops.12120
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12120 [Google Scholar]
  80. Rabatel, A.
    2010 Pour une approche intégrée des reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation : apprendre en reformulant et en resémiotisant documents iconiques, gestes et actions. InLes reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation, A. Rabatel (ed.), 7–24. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sandler, W. and Lillo-Martin, D.
    2006Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  82. Schembri, A.
    2003 Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in Signed Languages. InPerspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, K. Emmorey (ed.), 3–34. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Shaw, E.
    2018Gesture in Multiparty Interaction. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2rh2917
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2rh2917 [Google Scholar]
  84. Sloetjes, H. and Wittenburg, P.
    2008 Annotation by Category-ELAN and ISO DCR. Proceedings of the Sixth international Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008). Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30May 2008 European Language Resources Association. 816–820.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Streeck, J.
    2002 Grammars, Words, and Embodied Meanings: On the Uses and Evolution of so and like. Journal of communication52: 581–596. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  86. Stokoe, W. C.
    1960 Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers: 8.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Tannen, D.
    1995 Waiting for the Mouse: Constructed Dialogue in Conversation. InThe Dialogic Emergence of Culture, D. Tedlock and B. Mannheim (eds), 198–217. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tervoort, B.
    1953Structurele Analyze van Visueel Taalgebruik binnen een Groep Dove Kinderen [Structural analysis of visual language use within a group of deaf children]. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Thuilier, J.
    2013 Syntaxe du français parlé vs. écrit : le cas de la position de l’adjectif épithète par rapport au nom. TIPA. Travaux interdisciplinaires sur la parole et le langage29:1–29. 10.4000/tipa.1066
    https://doi.org/10.4000/tipa.1066 [Google Scholar]
  90. van der Hulst, H.
    to appear. The (Early) History of Sign Language Phonology. InThe Oxford Handbook of the History of Phonology, E. Dresher and H. van der Hulst eds Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Vermeerbergen, M.
    2006 Past and Current Trends in Sign Language Research. Language & Communication26: 168–92. 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  92. Vermeerbergen, M. and Demey, E.
    2007 Sign + Gesture = Speech + Gesture. InSimultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function, M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson and O. A. Crasborn (eds), 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281.12ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.12ver [Google Scholar]
  93. Vermeerbergen, M. and Nilsson, A. L.
    2018 Introduction. InA Bibliography of Sign Languages, 2008–2017, A. Aarssen, R. Genis and E. van der Veken (eds). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. West, L. M.
    1960 The Sign Language Analysis; vol. I and II. PhD Thesis, University of Indiana.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Woll, B.
    2003 Modality, Universality, and the Similarities among Sign Languages: An Historical Perspective. InCross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research, A. Baker, B. van den Bogaerde and O. Crasborn, O. (eds), 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Xiao, R. and T. McEnery
    2010Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zeshan, U.
    2004a Hand, Head, and Face: Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Linguistic Typology8: 1–58. 10.1515/lity.2004.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.003 [Google Scholar]
  98. 2004b Interrogative Constructions in Sign Languages: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Language80: 7–39. 10.1353/lan.2004.0050
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0050 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00024.gab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00024.gab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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