1887
Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Commentary on Bos (1998), Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/sll.00004.gok-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00004.gok
2018-03-26
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, Mark C.
    1988Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 1989 Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry20(4). 513–553.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go?Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22. 743–810. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bos, Heleen F.
    1998 An analysis of main verb and auxiliary agreement in SLN within the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990). Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Gallaudet University, Washington D.C., 12–15 November 1998 [Published 2017 in Sign Language & Linguistics, this volume]. doi: 10.1075/sll.00003.bos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00003.bos [Google Scholar]
  5. Chomsky, Noam
    1986Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gökgöz, Kadir
    2013The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Grose, Donovan , Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber
    2007 Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua117(7). 1258–1284. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.014 [Google Scholar]
  8. Harizanov, Boris
    2014 Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory32(4). 1033–1088. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑014‑9249‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9249-5 [Google Scholar]
  9. Huang, C.-T. James
    1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Jackendoff, Ray S.
    1990Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Julia Krebs , Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm
    2017 Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics20(1). 27–54.10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.20.1.02kre [Google Scholar]
  12. Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima
    1990 Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol.1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
    2012 Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.136
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.136 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. 1998aThematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1998b Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs: The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics1. 3–38. doi: 10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.1.1.03mei [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20. 413–450. doi: 10.1023/A:1015041113514
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015041113514 [Google Scholar]
  18. Neidle, Carol , Judy Kegl , Dawn MacLaughlin , Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee
    2000The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nevins, Andrew
    2011 Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics37(3–4), 173–187. doi: 10.1515/thli.2011.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Quadros, Ronice M. de & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2010 Clause structure. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 225–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ramchand, Gillian C.
    2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  23. Sapountzaki, Galini
    2012 Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110261325.204
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.204 [Google Scholar]
  24. Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau
    2007 Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In Pamela Perniss , Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Preminger, Omer
    2009 Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry40(4). 619–666. doi: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.4.619 [Google Scholar]
  26. Quadros, Ronice M. de & Josep Quer
    2008 Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unravelling the past, present and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianópolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: www.editora-arara-azul.com.br/EstudosSurdos.php].
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Steinbach, Markus
    2011 What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement?Theoretical Linguistics37(3–4). 209–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea
    2015 A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics33(3). 409–448.10.1093/jos/ffv002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffv002 [Google Scholar]
  29. Wilbur, Ronnie. B.
    2008 Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.00004.gok
Loading
  • Article Type: Article Commentary
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