1887
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Traditionally in sign language research, the issue of whether a lexical sign is articulated with one hand or two has been treated as a strictly phonological matter. We argue that accounting for two-handed signs also requires considering meaning as a motivating factor. We report results from a Swadesh list comparison, an analysis of semantic patterns among two-handed signs, and a picture-naming task. Comparing four unrelated languages, we demonstrate that the two hands are recruited to encode various relationship types in sign language lexicons. We develop the general principle that inherently “plural” concepts are straightforwardly mapped onto our paired human hands, resulting in systematic use of the two hands across sign languages. In our analysis, “plurality” subsumes four primary relationship types — , , , and — and we predict that signs with meanings that encompass these relationships — such as ‘meet’, ‘empty’, ‘large’, or ‘machine’ — will preferentially be two-handed in any sign language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
2016-08-29
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acquaviva, Paolo
    2008Lexical plurals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahlgren, Inger & Brita Bergman
    2006Det svenska teckenspråket. Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: Kunskaps- och forskningsöversikt (SOU 2006:29), 11–70. Statens offentliga utredningar.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Fityani, Kinda & Carol Padden
    2010 Sign languages in the Arab world. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 433–450. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.020
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronoff, Mark
    2007 In the beginning was the word. Language83(4). 803–830. doi: 10.1353/lan.2008.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0042 [Google Scholar]
  5. Aronoff, Mark , Irit Meir , Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
    2008 The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies9(1). 133–153. doi: 10.1075/is.9.1.10aro.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/is.9.1.10aro [Google Scholar]
  6. Aronoff, Mark , Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
    2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language81. 301–344. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0043
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043 [Google Scholar]
  7. Battison, Robbin
    1978Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22(4). 743–810. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bergen, Benjamin K
    2004 The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language80(2). 290–311. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0056.
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0056 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bergman, Brita
    1979Signed Swedish. Stockholm: Liber.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1982aTeckenspråkstranskription (Forskning om teckenspråk X). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1982bSign typology (Forskning om teckenspråk XI). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1983 Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, 3–9. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bergman, Brita & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
    2010 Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 74–94. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bergman, Brita & Johanna Mesch
    2004ECHO data set for Swedish Sign Language (SSL). Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Björkstrand, Thomas
    2016Swedish Sign Language dictionary online. Stockholm: Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. teckensprakslexikon.su.se.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Blevins, James P. , Farrell Ackerman & Robert Malouf
    . 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Heidi Harley & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.) Morphological metatheory, 271–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brennan, Mary
    1990Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brentari, Diane
    1998A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brentari, Diane & John A. Goldsmith
    1993 Secondary licensing and the nondominant hand in ASL phonology. In Geoffrey R. Coulter (ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology: Phonetics and phonology3, 19–41. New York, NY & San Francisco, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑193270‑1.50006‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-193270-1.50006-6 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bybee, Joan L. , Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Campbell, Lyle
    2004Historical linguistics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Corbett, Greville
    2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164344
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164344 [Google Scholar]
  25. Crasborn, Onno
    2011 The other hand in sign language phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp , Colin J. Ewen , Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, Vol. 1, 223–240. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Crasborn, Onno , Johanna Mesch , Dafydd Waters , Els van der Kooij , Bencie Woll & Brita Bergman
    2007 Sharing sign language data online. Experiences from the ECHO project. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics12(4). 535–562. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.12.4.06cra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.12.4.06cra [Google Scholar]
  27. Delbrück, Berthold
    1893Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Dingemanse, Mark
    2012 Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Linguistics and Language Compass6(10). 654–672. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.361.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.361 [Google Scholar]
  29. Emmorey, Karen
    2002Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (ed.) 2003Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369(1651). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0301
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fischer, Susan D
    1973 Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language9. 469–480.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Friedman, Lynn A
    1977On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Frishberg, Nancy
    1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language51(3). 696–719. doi: 10.2307/412894
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412894 [Google Scholar]
  35. Greenberg, Joseph H
    1957Essays in linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Guerra Currie , Anne-Marie P. , Richard P. Meier & Keith Walters
    2002 A crosslinguistic examination of the lexicons of four signed languages. In Richard P. Meier , Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 224–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.011 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen
    2005 Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences9(7). 342–348. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hellquist, Elof
    1922Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups förlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language56(2). 251–299. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hulst, Harry van der
    1996 On the other hand. Lingua98. 121–143. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00035‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00035-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(2). 115–185. doi: 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
  42. Kastner, Itamar , Irit Meir , Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky
    2014 The emergence of embedded structure: Insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology5(525). 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00525
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00525 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kisch, Shifra
    2008 “Deaf discourse”: The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community. Medical Anthropology27(3). 283–313. doi: 10.1080/01459740802222807
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740802222807 [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012 Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (eds.), Sign languages in village communitites: Anthropological and linguistic insights, 87–126. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kooij, Els van der
    2002Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli
    2001 The Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology, vol. 55, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.55 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kwon, Nahyun & Erich R. Round
    2015 Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology25(1). 1–27. doi: 10.1007/s11525‑014‑9250‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-014-9250-z [Google Scholar]
  49. Kyle, Jim G. & Bencie Woll
    (eds.) 1985Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Langacker, Ronald
    1990Concept, image, symbol. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lepic, Ryan
    2015Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. (Retrieved fromescholarship.org/uc/item/5c38w519).
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Liddell, Scott K & Robert E. Johnson
    1989 American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies64. 195–278. doi: 10.1353/sls.1989.0027
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1989.0027 [Google Scholar]
  53. Liddell, Scott K
    2003Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  54. Malkiel, Yakov
    1967 Each word has a history of its own. Glossa1. 137–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Meir, Irit
    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]
  56. 2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language86(4). 865–896.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Meir, Irit , Mark Aronoff , Wendy Sandler & Carol Padden
    2004 Sign languages and compounding. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.311.23mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.311.23mei [Google Scholar]
  58. Meir, Irit , Assaf Israel , Wendy Sandler , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2012 The influence of community size on language structure. Linguistic Variation12(2). 247–291. doi: 10.1075/lv.12.2.04mei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.12.2.04mei [Google Scholar]
  59. 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]
  60. Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
    2008A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Meir, Irit , Wendy Sandler , Carol A. Padden & Mark Aronoff
    (eds.) 2012Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa & Center for Research in Language, UCSD.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Meir, Irit , Wendy Sandler , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Emerging sign languages. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Napoli, Donna Jo & Jeff Wu
    2003 Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics6(2). 123–205. doi: 10.1075/sll.6.2.03nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.2.03nap [Google Scholar]
  64. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2-3). 143–176. doi: 10.1177/00238309990420020201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
  65. Newmeyer, Frederick J
    1992 Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language68(4). 756–796. doi: 10.1353/lan.1992.0047
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0047 [Google Scholar]
  66. Nilsson, Anna-Lena
    2007 The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In Myriam Vermeerbergen , Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 163–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.281.08nil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.08nil [Google Scholar]
  67. OED
    2013Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com (8 October, 2013).
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Özyürek, Aslı , Inge Zwitserlood & Pamela Perniss
    2010 Locative expressions in signed languages: A view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Linguistics48(5). 1111–1145. doi: 10.1515/ling.2010.036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.036 [Google Scholar]
  69. Padden, Carol
    1988Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 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. 81–94. doi: 10.1111/tops.12121
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12121 [Google Scholar]
  71. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , So-One Hwang , Ryan Lepic , Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson
    2013 Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture13(3). 181–202. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.3.03pad [Google Scholar]
  72. Padden, Carol , Irit Meir , Wendy Sandler & Mark Aronoff
    2010 Against all expectations: Encoding subjects and objects in a new language. In Donna Gerdts , John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 383–400. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Padden, Carol & David M. Perlmutter
    1987 American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory5. 335–375. doi: 10.1007/BF00134553
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134553 [Google Scholar]
  74. Perniss, Pamela , Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
    2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology1 (December 2010). 227. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227 [Google Scholar]
  75. Pfau, Roland & Enoch O. Aboh
    2012 On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. In Evan Cohen (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 27 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 65), 83–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2006 Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology10(2). 135–182. doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  77. Pizzuto, Elena & Serena Corazza
    1996 Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua98(1). 169–196. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00037‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00037-2 [Google Scholar]
  78. Prillwitz, Siegmund , Regina Leven , Heiko Zienert , Thomas Hanke & Jan Henning
    1989HamNoSys: Version 2.0. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rosch, Eleanor
    1978 Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sandler, Wendy
    1989Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in sign language phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110250473
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110250473 [Google Scholar]
  81. 1993 Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. The Linguistic Review10. 337–390. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1993.10.4.337
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1993.10.4.337 [Google Scholar]
  82. 1995 Markedness in the handshapes of sign language: A componential analysis. In Jeroen van der Weijer & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Leiden in last: Holland Institute of Linguistics phonology papers, 369–399. The Hague: Holland Academie Graphics.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 1999a Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.174.09san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.174.09san [Google Scholar]
  84. 1999b Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech42(2-3). 127–142. doi: 10.1177/00238309990420020101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020101 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2006 Phonology, phonetics, and the nondominant hand. In Louis Goldstein , D.H. Whalen & Catherine Best (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology: Varieties of phonological competence, 185–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 2012 The phonological organization of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass6(3). 162–182. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.326
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.326 [Google Scholar]
  87. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9128‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9128-2 [Google Scholar]
  88. Sandler, Wendy , Mark Aronoff , Carol Padden & Irit Meir
    2014 Language emergence: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. In Nick Enfield , Paul Kockelman & Jack Sidnell (eds.), Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 250–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.012 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
    2006Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sandler, Wendy , Irit Meir , Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
    2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102(7). 2661–2665. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405448102
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405448102 [Google Scholar]
  91. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1959Course in general linguistics. Translated, with an introduction and notes by Wade Baskin . (ed.) Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Savir, Hava
    1992Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Schlenker, Philippe
    2011 Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics37(3-4). 223–234. doi: 10.1515/thli.2011.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2011.017 [Google Scholar]
  94. Schlenker, Philippe , Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
    2013 Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy36(2). 91–149. doi: 10.1007/s10988‑013‑9129‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-013-9129-1 [Google Scholar]
  95. Scott, Daryl A. , Rivka Carmi , Khalil Eldebour , Geoffrey M. Duyk , Edwin M. Stone & Val Sheffield
    1995 Nonsyndromic autosomal recessive deafness is linked to the DFNB1 locus in a large inbred Bedouin family from Israel. American Journal of Human Genetics57(4). 965–968.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Siple, Patricia
    1978 Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies19. 95–110. doi: 10.1353/sls.1978.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0010 [Google Scholar]
  97. Stokoe, William C
    1960Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf (Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Supalla, Ted
    1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Collette G. Craig (ed.), Noun classification and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.7.13sup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.13sup [Google Scholar]
  99. Talmy, Leonard
    1978 Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, Syntax, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 2000Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 2003 The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 169–195. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Taub, Sarah F
    2001Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
  103. Tennant, Richard A. & Marianne Gluszak Brown
    2010The American Sign Language handshape dictionary, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Valli, Clayton & Ceil Lucas
    1995The linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Van Cleve, John Vickrey & Barry A. Crouch
    1989A place of their own: Creating the Deaf community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Vermeerbergen, Myriam , Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn
    (eds.) 2007Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.281
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281 [Google Scholar]
  107. Wallin, Lars
    1996Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Dept. of Linguistics PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1988 Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In Anna Wierzbicka (ed.), The semantics of grammar, 499–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  109. 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 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Wilcox, Sherman
    1992The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sspcl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sspcl.4 [Google Scholar]
  111. 2004 Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics15(2). 119–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Wilson, Margaret
    2002 Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review9(4). 625–636. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 [Google Scholar]
  113. Wisniewski, Edward J
    2010 On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts?In Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics, 1–24. Oxford Scholarship Online. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  114. Woll, Bencie , Onno Crasborn , Els van der Kooij , Johanna Mesch & Brita Bergman
    2010 Extended Swadesh list for signed languages. www.let.ru.nl/sign-lang/echo/.
  115. Woodward, James C
    1976 Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies10. 81–94. doi: 10.1353/sls.1976.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1976.0003 [Google Scholar]
  116. Zeshan, Ulrike & Connie de Vos
    (eds.) 2012Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press. doi: 10.1515/9781614511496
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511496 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
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