An analysis of main verb agreement and auxiliary agreement in NGT within the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990)*

References

1. Aarons, Debra , Benjamin Bahan , Judy Kegl & Carol Neidle
   1994 Subjects and agreement in American Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren , Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol. 1, 13–28. Durham: ISLA.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Baker, Mark C.
   1988 Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, Mark C.
   1989 Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry20(4). 513–553.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bos, Heleen
   1990 Person and location marking in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Some implications of a spatially expressed syntactic system. In Siegmund Prillwitz & Thomas Vollhaber (eds), Current trends in European sign language research. Papers of the Third European Congress on Sign Language Research, 231–246. Hamburg: Signum Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bos, Heleen F.
   1993 Agreement and prodrop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Frank Drijkoningen & Kees Hengeveld (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993, 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Bos, Heleen F.
   1994 An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Inger Ahlgren , Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds), Perspectives on sign language structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, Vol.I, 37–53. Durham: ISLA.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bos, Heleen F.
   1995 Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Heleen F. Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 121–147. Hamburg: Signum Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Brentari, Diane
   1988 Backward verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. Chicago Linguistic Society24(2). 16–27.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Coerts, Jane A.
   1992 Nonmanual grammatical markers. An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Comrie, Bernard
    1981 Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993 Space in Danish Sign Language. The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fischer, Susan
    1992 Agreement in Japanese Sign Language. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America , Los Angeles, January 8, 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fischer, Susan
    1996 The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua98. 103–120. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00034‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00034-8 [Google Scholar]
14. Fischer, Susan & Bonnie Gough
    1978 Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies18. 17–48. doi: 10.1353/sls.1978.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0014 [Google Scholar]
15. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1975 Space, time and person reference in American Sign Language. Language51. 940–961. doi: 10.2307/412702
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412702 [Google Scholar]
16. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1976 The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in American Sign Language. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 127–148. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Gee, James P. & Wendy Goodhart
    1988 American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. In Michael Strong (ed.), Language learning and deafness, 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524483.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524483.004 [Google Scholar]
18. Gee, James P. & Judy A. Kegl
    1982 Semantic perspicuity and the locative hypothesis: implications for acquisition. Journal of Education164. 185–209.10.1177/002205748216400207
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002205748216400207 [Google Scholar]
19. Givón, Talmy
    1976 Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 149–188. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gruber, Jeffrey
    1965[1976] Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation. [Published 1976 as Lexical structures in syntax and semantics . Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company].
    [Google Scholar]
21. Jackendoff, Ray.
    1976 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Jackendoff, Ray S.
    1990 Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Janis, Wynn D.
    1995 A crosslinguistic perspective on ASL verb agreement. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 195–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Johnston, Trevor
    1991 Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the marking of person and location in Auslan. International Journal of Sign Linguistics2(1), 29–62.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Liddell, Scott K.
    1995 Real, surrogate and token space: grammatical consequences in ASL. In Karen Emmorey & Judy S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson
    1989 ASL – The phonological base. Sign Language Studies64. 195–278. doi: 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1989.0027 [Google Scholar]
27. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1986 Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory4. 415–444. doi: 10.1007/BF00134469
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134469 [Google Scholar]
28. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1991 Universal Grammar and American Sign Language. Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3468‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3468-2 [Google Scholar]
29. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima
    1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Meir, Irit
    1995 Explaining backwards verbs in ISL: Syntactic-semantic interaction. In Heleen Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 105–119. Hamburg: Signum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Meir, Irit
    1998 Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics1. 3–38. doi: 10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei [Google Scholar]
32. Padden, Carol A.
    1981 Some arguments for syntactic patterning. Sign Language Studies32. 239–259.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Padden, Carol A.
    1983[1988] Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. [Published 1988 in Outstanding dissertations in linguistics , New York: Garland Publishing].
    [Google Scholar]
34. Padden, Carol A.
    1990 The relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research. Theoretical issues, 118–132. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Pizzuto, Elena
    1986 The verb system of Italian Sign Language. In Bernard T. Tervoort (ed.), Signs of life. Proceedings of the Second European Congress on Sign Language Research, 17–31. Amsterdam: NSDSK.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Shepard-Kegl, Judy
    1985 Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax, and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]