1887
image of Markers of epistemic modality and their origins
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Native deaf signers express epistemic modality by different means: mental-state words, clause-internal particles, signs indicating hypothesis, and nonmanually. The data for this study come from two unrelated sign languages, Danish Sign Language and Japanese Sign Language. In dialogues the signers use both calques of majority-language words and signs that appear to have emerged in the sign languages only. Based on the multifunctionality of some word forms, the origin of the epistemic modal particles may be traced back to tags, interjections, and lexical signs, a route motivated by interaction and also found in unrelated spoken languages. Furthermore, in both sign languages, the first-person pronoun can be used, without a verb, as an epistemic “anchor” of a proposition, a construction that seems specific to languages in the gestural-visual modality. Another modality-specific feature is the possibility of transferring the expression of a marker of epistemic uncertainty from one articulator to another.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19065.eng
2020-09-07
2021-06-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
    2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language81(2). 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auwera, Johan van der & Vladimir A. Plungian
    1998 Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology2(1). 79–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Douglas A. Lawrie & Allan Wade
    1992 Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes15(4). 469–489. 10.1080/01638539209544823
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544823 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Linda Coates & Loti Roe
    1995 Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21(4). 394–405. 10.1177/0146167295214010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214010 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergman, Britta & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
    2010 Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 74–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
    2007 Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language31(3). 569–606. doi:  10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  7. 2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language88(1). 1–44. 10.1353/lan.2012.0020
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2012.0020 [Google Scholar]
  8. Boye, Kasper
    2012Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219036 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyes Braem, Penny
    2001 Functions of the mouthing component in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages, 1–47. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brentari, Diane, Alessio Di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra
    2015 Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science7(2–3). 95–123. doi:  10.1111/tops.12123
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12123 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bross, Fabian & Daniel Hole
    2017 Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics2(1). 1–30. doi:  10.5334/gjgl.106
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.106 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen & Silvia Iglesias-Lago
    2015 Spanish Sign Language. InJulie B. Jepsen, Goedele De Clerck, Sam Lutalo-Kiingi & William B. McGregor (eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, 729–769. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614518174‑037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614518174-037 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen
    2013 Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). CogniTextes10. doi:  10.4000/cognitextes.642
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.642 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InCharles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York, NY: Academic Press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Conlin, Frances, Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle
    2003 A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery2(1). 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cormier, Kearsy, David Quinto-Pozos, Zed Sevcikova & Adam Schembri
    2012 Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication32. 329–348. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crasborn, Onno
    2015 Transcription and notation methods. InEleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll & Gary Morgan (eds.), Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide, 75–88. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118346013.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346013.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
    2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech52(2–3). 287–314. 10.1177/0023830909103175
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103175 [Google Scholar]
  20. Debras, Camille
    2017 The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture16(1). 1–34. 10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.01deb [Google Scholar]
  21. Delaporte, Yves
    2007Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue des signes française: Origine et évolution de 1200 signes. Les Essarts-le-Roi: Éditions du Fox.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1990 Pragmatics of nonmanual behaviour in Danish Sign Language. InWilliam H. Edmondson & Fred Karlsson (eds.), SLR ‘87: Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 121–128. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1993Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1994 Some simultaneous constructions in Danish Sign Language. InMary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language: Working papers presented at a workshop held in Durham, 18–22 September 1991, 73–87. Durham: The International Sign Linguistics Association, The Deaf Studies Research Unit, University of Durham.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1995 Point of view expressed through shifters. InKaren Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 133–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2002a Gestures in signing: The presentation gesture in Danish Sign Language. InRolf Schulmeister & Heimo Reinitzer (eds.), Progress in Sign Language Research: In Honor of Siegmund Prillwitz/Fortschritte in der Gebärdensprachforschung: Festschrift für Siegmund Prillwitz, vol.40/Band40, 143–162. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002b Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: Topic and subject. InAnneli Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language, vol.3, 5–40. Turku: Turun yliopisto/University of Turku.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2015 Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics, 1. 411–431. doi:  10.1515/opli‑2015‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0010 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferreira Brito, Lucinda
    1990 Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian sign language. InSusan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: Linguistics, 229–260. Chicago, ILL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fischer, Susan & Qunhu Gong
    2010 Variation in East Asian sign language structures. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 499–518. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.023
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.023 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fischer, Susan & Wynne Janis
    1990 Verb sandwiches in American Sign Language. InSiegmund Prillwitz & Tomas Vollhaber (eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on sign language research, 75–85. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fischer, Susan D.
    1996 The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua98. 103–119. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00034‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00034-8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fischer, Susan
    2003 The cross-linguistic study of sign languages. TCT Education of Disabilities2(1). 1–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gabarró-López, Silvia
    2017 Discourse markers in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) and Catalan Sign Language (LSC): BUOYS, PALM-UP and SAME: Variation, functions and position in discourse. Namur: University of Namurdissertation.
  35. Goldin-Meadow, Susan
    2013 Homesign: When gesture is called upon to be language. InCornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silvia Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, vol.1, 113–125. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft
    2011Grammatik over det danske sprogI–III [Grammar of the Danish language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Heine, Bernd & Tanya Kuteva
    2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  38. Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström & Jakob Steensig
    2011 Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. InTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 107–130. Cambridge, ILL: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.006 [Google Scholar]
  39. Herrero-Blanco, Ángel & Ventura Salazar-García
    2010 The expression of modality in Spanish Sign Language. InGerry Wanders & Evelien Keizer (eds.), The London Papers II, 19–42 (WEB Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar 83). Available at: home.hum.uva.nl/fdg/working_papers/WP-FDG-83_Herrero&Salazar.pdflast access5 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Herrmann, Annika
    2013Modal and focus particles in sign languages: A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614511816
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511816 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hsin, Ai-li. C.
    2016 An analysis of Chinese tag questions with a cross-linguistic comparison to English tags. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics14(1). 67–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Janzen, Terry & Barbara Shaffer
    2002 Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. InRichard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 199–223. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnston, Trevor, Donovan Cresdee, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll
    2015 FINISH variation and grammaticalization in a signed language: How far down this well-trodden pathway is Auslan (Australian Sign Language)? Language Variation and Change27. 117–155. 10.1017/S0954394514000209
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394514000209 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2010 Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think. InGunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 237–265. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 10.1163/9789004253247_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253247_012 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kendon, Adam
    1988 How gestures can become like words. InFernando Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1995 Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics23(3). 247–279. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00037‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00037-F [Google Scholar]
  47. 2004Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lackner, Andrea
    2017Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501507779
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507779 [Google Scholar]
  49. Lane, Harlan
    1984When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York, NY: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2013 Modals: Striving for control. InJuana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge A. Hita, & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, 3–55. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110286328.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328.3 [Google Scholar]
  52. Matsui, Tomoko, Taeko Yamamoto & Peter McCagg
    2006 On the role of language in children’s early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development21. 158–173. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Matsuoka, Kazumi, Uiko Yano, Hitomi Akahori & Norie Oka
    2016 Notes on modals and negation in Japanese Sign Language. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences15. 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. McKee, Rachel L. & Sophia Wallingford
    2011 ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics14(2). 213–247. 10.1075/sll.14.2.01mck
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.2.01mck [Google Scholar]
  55. Meier, Richard P.
    2012 Language and modality. InRoland Pfau, Marcus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 574–601. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.574
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.574 [Google Scholar]
  56. Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics24(2). 309–343. doi:  10.1515/cog‑2013‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0010 [Google Scholar]
  57. Merriam-Webster.com 2020 Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com, last access5 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mesch, Johanna
    2016 Manual backchannel responses in signers’ conversations in Swedish Sign Language. Language & Communication50. 22–41. 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  59. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255–268. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mithun, Marianne
    2012 Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics44. 2165–2182. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.010 [Google Scholar]
  61. Müller, Cornelia
    2004 Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: a case of a gesture family?InCornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gesture: Proceedings of the Berlin conference, April 1998, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ordbog over Dansk Tegnsprog [Dictionary of Danish Sign Language] 2019 Available at: tegnsprog.dk, last access5 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ordbog over det danske sprog [Dictionary of the Danish language] 2020 Available at: https://ordnet.dk/ods, last access5 July 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers
    2015 Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science7(2–3). 81–94. doi:  10.1111/tops.12121
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121 [Google Scholar]
  65. Padden, Carol
    1988Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2007 On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. InPamela M. Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 129–161. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2011 Grammaticalization in sign languages. InBernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pfau, Roland
    2012 Manual communication systems: Evolution and variation. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 513–551. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261325.513
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.513 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sandler, Wendy
    2003 On the complementarity of signed and spoken languages. InYonata Levy & Jeanette C. Schaeffer (eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment, 383–410. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2010 The uniformity and diversity of language: Evidence from sign language. Lingua120. 2727–2732. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.015 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2012 Visual prosody. InRoland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 55–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 2013 Vive la différence: Sign language and spoken language in language evolution. Language and Cognition5(2–3). 189–203. doi:  10.1515/langcog‑2013‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2013-0013 [Google Scholar]
  73. Sapountzaki, Galini G.
    2005 Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of BristolPhD dissertation.
  74. Schembri, Adam
    2003 Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. InKaren Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Shaffer, Barbara & Terry Janzen
    2016 Modality and mood in American Sign Language. InJan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 448–470. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 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]
  77. 2004 Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 175–195. 10.1515/cogl.2004.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.007 [Google Scholar]
  78. Siyavoshi, Sara
    2019 Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics30(4). 655–686. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0130
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0130 [Google Scholar]
  79. Slobin, Dan I.
    2013 Typology and channel of communication: Where do signed languages fit in?InBalthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.104.02slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.104.02slo [Google Scholar]
  80. Spread the Sign
    Spread the Sign 2018 Available at: https://www.spreadthesign.com/en.us/search/, last access5 July 2020.
  81. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  82. Thompson, Sandra A.
    2002 “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language26(1). 125–164. doi:  10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho [Google Scholar]
  83. Torigoe, Takashi
    1994 Resumptive X structure in Japanese Sign Language. InInger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure, 187–198. Durham: The International Sign Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Vermeerbergen, Myriam, & Eline Demey
    2007 Sign + gesture = speech + gesture?InMyriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 258–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281.12ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.12ver [Google Scholar]
  85. Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson, & Onno Crasborn
    eds. Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Wilcox, Phyllis P.
    1996 Deontic and epistemic modals in ASL: Discourse analysis. InAdele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 481–492. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Wilcox, Sherman & Barbara Shaffer
    2006 Modality in American Sign Language. InWilliam Frawley, Wolfgang Klein & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Expression of cognitive categories: The expression of modality, 207–237. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wilcox, Sherman & Phyllis P. Wilcox
    1995 The gestural expression of modality in ASL. InJoan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.07wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.07wil [Google Scholar]
  89. Wilcox, Sherman, Paolo Rossini & Elena Antinoro Pizzuto
    2010 Grammaticalization in sign languages. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 332–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.016 [Google Scholar]
  90. Wilcox, Sherman
    2004 Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture4(1). 43–73. 10.1075/gest.4.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.4.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  91. 2009 Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7. 89–110. doi:  10.1075/arcl.7.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.04wil [Google Scholar]
  92. Xavier, André Nogueira & Sherman Wilcox
    2014 Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Linguistic Typology18(3). 449–448. doi:  10.1515/lingty‑2014‑0019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2014-0019 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19065.eng
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.19065.eng
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