Torso articulation in sign languages

References

1. Aarons, Debra
   1994 Aspects of the syntax of American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University PhD dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bahan, Benjamin & Laura Pettito
   1980 Aspects of rules for character establishment and reference in ASL storytelling. Unpublished manuscript, La Jolla, CA: Salk Institute for Biological Studies.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, Charlotte L. & Carol Padden
   1978 Focusing on the non-manual components of American Sign Language. InPatricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York: Academic Press.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Baker-Shenk, Charlotte L.
   1983 A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. Open access: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7b03x0tz
   [Google Scholar]
5. Benitez-Quiroz, C. Fabian, Kadir Gökgöz, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Aleix M. Martinez
   2014 Discriminant features and temporal structure of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. PloS One9(2). e86268. 10.1371/journal.pone.0086268
   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086268 [Google Scholar]
6. Boyes Braem, Penny
   1981 Distinctive features of the handshape in American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Boyes Braem, Penny
   1999 Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of early and late learners of German Swiss Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2/3). 177–208. 10.1177/00238309990420020301
   https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020301 [Google Scholar]
8. Boyes Braem, Penny & Rachel Sutton-Spence
   2001 The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bredeli, Johanne Helle
   2022 Framing of Constructed Action in elicited narratives and conversational narratives in Norwegian Sign Language. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department of Linguistic and Scandinavian Studies MA thesis. https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/95408
   [Google Scholar]
10. Brentari, Diane
    1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Brentari, Diane
    2019 Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316286401
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286401 [Google Scholar]
12. Brock, Heike, Iva Farag & Kazuhiro Nakadai
    2020 Recognition of non-manual content in continuous Japanese Sign Language. Sensors20(19). 5621. 10.3390/s20195621
    https://doi.org/10.3390/s20195621 [Google Scholar]
13. Caselli, Naomi, Corrine Occhino, Bruno Artacho, Andreas Savakis & Matthew Dye
    2022 Perceptual optimization of language: Evidence from American Sign Language. Cognition2241. 105040. 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105040
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105040 [Google Scholar]
14. Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Zed Sevcikova-Sehyr
    2015 Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics18(2). 167–204. 10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.01cor [Google Scholar]
15. Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij
    2013 The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Journal of Linguistics49(3). 515–565. 10.1017/S0022226713000054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226713000054 [Google Scholar]
16. Cuxac, Christian
    1999 The expression of spatial relations and the spatialization of semantic relations in French Sign Language. InCatherine Fuchs & Stephanie Robert (eds.), Language diversity and cognitive representations, 123–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.3.11cux
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.11cux [Google Scholar]
17. Cuxac, Christian
    2000 La langue des signes française (LSF). Les voies de l’iconicité. Faits de Langues (Evry)15/161. 288. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Cuxac, Christian
    2003 Langue et langage: Un rapport critique de la Langue des Signes Française. InChristian Cuxac (ed.), Langue Française1371, 12–31. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Ćwiek, Aleksandra, Susanne Fuchs, Christoph Draxler, Eva Liina Asu, Dan Dediu, Katri Hiovain, Shigeto Kawahara,
    2022 The bouba/kiki effect is robust across cultures and writing systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B377(1841). 20200390. 10.1098/rstb.2020.0390
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0390 [Google Scholar]
20. de Saussure, Ferdinand
    1916 Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Dingemanse, Mark, Damián E. Blasi, Gary Lupyan, Morten H. Christiansen & Padraic Monaghan
    2015 Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(10), 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
22. Dotter, Franz
    1999 Sign language “between” gestures (nonverbal behavior) and spoken languages?STUF – Language Typology and Universals52(1). 3–21. 10.1524/stuf.1999.52.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1999.52.1.3 [Google Scholar]
23. Dotter, Franz
    2018 Most characteristic elements of sign language texts are intricate mixtures of linguistic and non-linguistic parts, aren’t they?Colloquium: New Philologies3(1). 1–62.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Durden, E. Moncell
    2019 Beginning hip-hop dance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 10.5040/9781718203471
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781718203471 [Google Scholar]
25. Emmorey, Karen, Robin Thompson & Rachael Colvin
    2009 Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education14(2). 237–243. 10.1093/deafed/enn037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enn037 [Google Scholar]
26. Enfield, Nick
    2009 The anatomy of meaning: Speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
27. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993 Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Fenlon, Jordan, Kearsy Cormier & Diane Brentari
    2017 The phonology of sign languages. InStephan J. Hannahs & Anna R. K. Bosch (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 453–475. Oxfordshire: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315675428‑16
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675428-16 [Google Scholar]
29. Ferrara, Casey & Donna Jo Napoli
    . Submitted. “Let’s go!” “Which way?” Strategies for choosing starting point and direction of movement in drawing in the air. Available upon writing to the authors.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Ferrara, Lindsay & Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology. 91. 716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
31. Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston
    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]
32. Friedman, Lynn A.
    1976 Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. Retrieved fromhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zw7p9qg. AccessedNovember 1, 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Garcia, Brigitte & Marie-Anne Sallandre
    2013 Transcription systems for sign languages: A sketch of the different graphical representations of sign language and their characteristics. InCornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body–language–communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, Vol. 1, 1125–1338. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261318.1125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.1125 [Google Scholar]
34. Gerstin, Julian
    2004 Tangled roots: Kalenda and other neo-African dances in the circum-Caribbean. New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids78(1/2). 5–41. 10.1163/13822373‑90002516
    https://doi.org/10.1163/13822373-90002516 [Google Scholar]
35. Göksel, Aslı & Meltem Kelepir
    2013 The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics16(1). 1–30. 10.1075/sll.16.1.01gok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.1.01gok [Google Scholar]
36. Goswell, Della
    2011 Being there: Role shift in English to Auslan interpreting. InLorraine Leeson, Svenja Wurm & Myriam Vermeerbergen (eds.), Signed language interpreting: Preparation, practice and performance, 67–92. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Hanke, Thomas
    2004 HamNoSys – Representing sign language data in language resources and language processing contexts. InO. Streiter & Chiara Vettori (eds.), Workshop proceedings: Representation and processing of sign languages, 1–6. Paris: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Hebert, Carolyn
    2016 Mini & macho, small & sexy: The perpetuation of heteronormativity, hegemonic masculinity, and femininity within the culture of competitive (jazz and hip-hop) dance. In Hellenic Centre of the International Theatre Institute (organizing body), Congress on Research in Dance Conference Proceedings. Cut and paste: dance advocacy in the age of austerity. Vol. 2016, 208–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cor.2016.28
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cor.2016.28 [Google Scholar]
39. Herrmann, Annika
    2013 Modal and focus particles in sign languages. A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614511816
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511816 [Google Scholar]
40. Herrmann, Annika & Markus Steinbach
    (eds.) 2013 Nonmanuals in sign language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.53 [Google Scholar]
41. Hodge, Gabrielle & Lindsay Ferrara
    2014 Showing the story: Enactment as performance in Auslan narratives. InLauren Gawne & Jill Vaughan (eds.), Selected papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 1 October 2013. Vol. 44, 372–397. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Hoiting, Nini & Dan I. Slobin
    2002 Transcription as a tool for understanding. InGary Morgan & Bencie Woll (eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.2.06hoi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.2.06hoi [Google Scholar]
43. Hutchins, Sharon Suzanne
    1998 The psychological reality, variability, and compositionality of English phonesthemes. Emory University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Jantunen, Tommi
    2007 The equative sentence in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics10(2). 113–143. 10.1075/sll.10.2.04jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.04jan [Google Scholar]
45. Jantunen, Tommi
    2016 Clausal coordination in Finnish Sign Language. Studies in Language40(1). 204–234. 10.1075/sl.40.1.07jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.1.07jan [Google Scholar]
46. Jantunen, Tommi
    2017 Constructed action, the clause and the nature of syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Linguistics31. 65–85. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0004 [Google Scholar]
47. Jantunen, Tommi, Danny De Weerdt, Birgitta Burger & Anna Puupponen
    2021 The more you move, the more action you construct: A motion capture study on head and upper-torso movements in constructed action in Finnish Sign Language narratives. Gesture19(1). 76–101. 10.1075/gest.19042.jan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.19042.jan [Google Scholar]
48. Jantunen, Tommi, Birgitta Burger, Danny De Weerdt, Irja Seilola & Tuija Wainio
    2012 Experiences collecting motion capture data on continuous signing. InOnno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Jette Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Proceedings of the LREC 2012 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between corpus and lexicon, 75–82. Paris: ELRA. https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/12003.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
49. Janzen, Terry
    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]
50. Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
    1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics2(2). 115–185. 10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.2.2.03joh [Google Scholar]
51. Johnston, Trevor, Jane Van Roekel & Adam Schembri
    2016 On the conventionalization of mouth actions in Australian Sign Language. Language and Speech59(1). 3–42. 10.1177/0023830915569334
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830915569334 [Google Scholar]
52. Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
    1999 Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. InMichel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Kendon, Adam
    2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
54. Kendon, Adam
    2017 Languages as semiotically heterogenous systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences401. E59. 10.1017/S0140525X15002940
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15002940 [Google Scholar]
55. Keränen, Jarkko, Henna Syrjälä, Juhana Salonen & Ritva Takkinen
    2016 The usability of the annotation. InEleni Efthimiou, Stavroula-Evita Fontinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette H. Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Workshop proceedings: 7th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpus mining, 111–116. Paris: ELRA.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Kipp, Michael, Alexis Heloir & Quan Nguyen
    2011 Sign language avatars: Animation and comprehensibility. InHannes Högni Vilhjálmsson, Stefan Kopp, Stacy Marsella & Kristinn R. Thórisson (eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents 11th International Conference, IVA, Reykjavik, 15–17 September 2011, 113–126. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑23974‑8_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23974-8_13 [Google Scholar]
57. Kita, Sotaro
    2003 Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation and language in pointing. InSotaro Kita (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet, 307–328. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9781410607744‑17
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607744-17 [Google Scholar]
58. Köse, Hatice, Pınar Uluer, Neziha Akalın, Rabia Yorgancı, Ahmet Özkul & Gökhan Ince
    2015 The effect of embodiment in sign language tutoring with assistive humanoid robots. International Journal of Social Robotics71. 537–548. 10.1007/s12369‑015‑0311‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-015-0311-1 [Google Scholar]
59. Laban, Rudolf
    1956 Principles of dance movement notation: With 114 basic movement graphs and their explanation. London: Macdonald & Evans.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Lackner, Andrea
    2017 Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781501507779
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501507779 [Google Scholar]
61. Lackner, Andrea
    2021 Nonmanuals in sign languages: A research desideratum. Grazer Linguistische Studien931. 1–27. 10.25364/04.48:2021.93.1
    https://doi.org/10.25364/04.48:2021.93.1 [Google Scholar]
62. Liddell, Scott K.
    2003 Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
63. Liddell, Scott K. & Melanie Metzger
    1998 Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics30(6). 657–697. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00061‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00061-7 [Google Scholar]
64. Loos, Cornelia & Donna Jo Napoli
    2021 Expanding echo: Coordinated head articulations as nonmanual enhancements in sign language phonology. Cognitive Science45(5). e12958. 10.1111/cogs.12958
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12958 [Google Scholar]
65. Mather, Sue & Elizabeth Winston
    1998 Spatial mapping and involvement in ASL storytelling. InCeil Lucas (ed.), Pinky extension and eye gaze: Language use in deaf communities, 183–210. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Meir, Irit, Carol A. Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
    2007 Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics43(3). 531–563. 10.1017/S0022226707004768
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004768 [Google Scholar]
67. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Mocialov, Boris, Graham Turner & Helen Hastie
    2022 Classification of phonological parameters in sign languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12072. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.12072.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
69. Monaghan, Padraic, Richard C. Shillcock, Morten H. Christiansen & Simon Kirby
    2014 How arbitrary is language?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences369(1651), 20130299. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0299
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0299 [Google Scholar]
70. Napoli, Donna Jo
    2022 Stimuli for initiation: a comparison of dance and (sign) language. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science61. 287–303. 10.1007/s41809‑022‑00095‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-022-00095-y [Google Scholar]
71. Napoli, Donna Jo & Casey Ferrara
    2021 Correlations between handshape and movement in sign languages. Cognitive Science45(5). e12944. 10.1111/cogs.12944
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12944 [Google Scholar]
72. Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis
    2019 Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science3(1). 31–61. 10.1007/s41809‑019‑00027‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-019-00027-3 [Google Scholar]
73. Napoli, Donna Jo & Rachel Sutton-Spence
    2023 The nature of torso articulation in human expression: Signing and dancing. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science71. 269 – 288. 10.1007/s41809‑023‑00127‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-023-00127-1 [Google Scholar]
74. Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
    1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech42(2–3). 143–176. 10.1177/00238309990420020201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020201 [Google Scholar]
75. Nilsson, Anna-Lena
    2016 Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics27(1). 35–65. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0029 [Google Scholar]
76. Nyst, Victoria
    2007 A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Occhino, Corrine, Benjamin Anible, Erin Wilkinson & Jill P. Morford
    2017 Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture16(1), 100–126. 10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.04occ [Google Scholar]
78. Padden, Carol A.
    1986 Verbs and role shifting in American Sign Language. InCarol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, 44–57. Silver Spring, MD: NAD.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Pendzich, Nina-Kristin
    2020 Lexical nonmanuals in German Sign Language: Empirical studies and theoretical implications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110671667
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110671667 [Google Scholar]
80. Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
    2010 Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. InDiane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511712203.018 [Google Scholar]
81. Pizzuto, Elena & Virginia Volterra
    2000 Iconicity and transparency in sign language: A cross-linguistic cross-cultural view. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), Signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 261–286. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
82. Pizzuto, Elena, Paolo Rossini, Marie-Anne Sallandre & Erin Wilkinson
    2008 Deixis, anaphora and highly iconic structures: Crosslinguistic evidence on American (ASL), French (LSF), and Italian (LIS) signed languages. InRonice Müller de Quadros (ed.), Theoretical issues in sign language research91, 475–495. Florianopolis, Brazil: Arara Azul.
    [Google Scholar]
83. Prillwitz, Siegmund, Regina Leven, Heiko Zienert, Thomas Hanke & Jan Henning
    1987 HamNoSys. Hamburg Notation System for Sign Languages. An introduction. Hamburg: Zentrum für Deutsche Gebärdensprache.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Puupponen, Anna
    2018 The relationship between movements and positions of the head and the torso in Finnish Sign Language. Sign Language Studies18(2). 175–214. 10.1353/sls.2018.0000
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2018.0000 [Google Scholar]
85. Puupponen, Anna, Tommi Jantunen, Ritva Takkinen, Tuija Wainio & Outi Pippuri
    2014 Taking non-manuality into account in collecting and analyzing Finnish Sign Language video data. InOnno Crasborn, Eleni Efthimiou, Evita Fotinea, Thomas Hanke, Julie Hochgesang, Jette Kristoffersen & Johanna Mesch (eds.), Beyond the manual channel. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages. 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), 143–148. Paris: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/workshops/LREC​2014​Work​shop​Sign​Language​%20​Proceedings.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
86. Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta
    2010 Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics42(3). 557–584. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.004 [Google Scholar]
87. Rayman, Jennifer
    1999 Storytelling in the visual mode: A comparison of ASL and English. InElizabeth Winston (ed.), Storytelling & conversation: Discourse in deaf communities, 59–82. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Reilly, Judy
    2006 How faces come to serve grammar: The development of nonmanual morphology in American Sign Language. InBrenda Schick, Marc Marschark & Elizabeth Spencer (eds.), Advances in the sign language development of deaf children, 262–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
89. Roemmich, James N.
    2016 Height-adjustable desks: energy expenditure, liking, and preference of sitting and standing. Journal of Physical Activity and Health13(10). 1094–1099. 10.1123/jpah.2015‑0397
    https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2015-0397 [Google Scholar]
90. Russo, Tommaso
    2004 Iconicity and productivity in sign language discourse: an analysis of three LIS discourse registers. Sign Language Studies4(2). 164–197. 10.1353/sls.2004.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2004.0006 [Google Scholar]
91. Russo, Tommaso, Rosaria Giuranna & Elena Pizzuto
    2001 Italian Sign Language (LIS) poetry: Iconic properties and structural regularities. Sign Language Studies2(1). 84–112. 10.1353/sls.2001.0026
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2001.0026 [Google Scholar]
92. Sallandre, Marie-Anne
    2003 Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Française. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d’une grammaire de l’iconicité. Paris: University of Paris 8 PhD dissertation. Available at: umr7023.free.fr/Downloads/Sallandre_these_tabmat.html
    [Google Scholar]
93. Sanborn, Ian
    2017 Caterpillar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PeYpRbg18Y
94. Sanders, Nathan & Donna Jo Napoli
    2016a Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language92(2). 275–297. 10.1353/lan.2016.0032
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0032 [Google Scholar]
95. Sanders, Nathan & Donna Jo Napoli
    2016b A cross-linguistic preference for torso stability in the lexicon: Evidence from 24 sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics19(2). 197–231. 10.1075/sll.19.2.02san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.2.02san [Google Scholar]
96. Sapir, Edward
    1929 The status of linguistics as a science. Language51. 207–214. 10.2307/409588
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409588 [Google Scholar]
97. Schmaling, Constanze & Thomas Hanke
    2001 Encoding manual aspects of sign language: HamNoSys 4.0. InThomas Hanke (ed.), ViSiCAST Deliverable D5-1: Interface definitions, 26–41. https://vhg.cmp.uea.ac.uk/tech/hamnosys/ViSiCASTD5-1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
98. Siple, Patricia
    1978 Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies191. 95–110. 10.1353/sls.1978.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1978.0010 [Google Scholar]
99. Slobin, Dan I., Nini Hoiting, Michelle Anthony, Yael Biederman, Marlon Kuntze, Reyna Lindert, Jennie Pyers, Helen Thumann & Amy Weinberg
    2001 Sign language transcription at the level of meaning components: The Berkeley Transcription System (BTS). Sign Language & Linguistics4(1/2). 63–104. 10.1075/sll.4.12.07slo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.4.12.07slo [Google Scholar]
100. Stokoe, William
     1960 Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Paper 8. University of Buffalo. [Re-issued 2005, Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education10(1), 3–37].
     [Google Scholar]
101. Sutton, Valerie
     2014 Lessons in sign writing: Textbook. 3rd Edition. La Jolla, CA: Center for Sutton Movement Writing. https://www.signwriting.org/archive/docs2/sw0116-Lessons-SignWriting.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
102. Sutton, Valerie & Adam Frost
     2008 Signwriting: sign languages are written languages. La Jolla, CA: Center for Sutton Movement Writing. https://www.signwriting.org/archive/docs6/sw0523-US-SignWritingVAILConference2008.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
103. Sutton-Spence, Rachel
     2005 Analysing sign language poetry. New York: Springer. 10.1057/9780230513907
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230513907 [Google Scholar]
104. Sutton-Spence, Rachel
     2016 Metaphor in sign language poetry. InFrancesca Ervas & Elisabetta Gola (eds.), Metaphor and communication, 249–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.5.14sut
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.5.14sut [Google Scholar]
105. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Michiko Kaneko
     2016 Introducing sign language literature: Folklore and creativity. London: Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑93179‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-93179-8 [Google Scholar]
106. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Donna Jo Napoli
     2009 Humour in sign languages: The linguistic underpinnings. Dublin: Trinity College.
     [Google Scholar]
107. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Donna Jo Napoli
     2010 Anthropomorphism in sign languages: A look at poetry and storytelling with a focus on British Sign Language. Sign Language Studies10(4). 442–475. 10.1353/sls.0.0055
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.0.0055 [Google Scholar]
108. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Donna Jo Napoli
     2013 How much can classifiers be analogous to their referents?Gesture13(1). 1–27. 10.1075/gest.13.1.01sut
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.1.01sut [Google Scholar]
109. Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll
     1998 The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
110. Sze, Felix
     2013 Nonmanual markings for topic constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. InAnnika Herrmann & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Nonmanuals in sign language, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.53.07sze
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.53.07sze [Google Scholar]
111. Taub, Sarah F.
     2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511509629
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509629 [Google Scholar]
112. Thiessen, Stuart M.
     2011 A grammar of SignWriting. University of North Dakota MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
113. Tomaszewski, Piotr & Michael Farris
     2010 Not by the hands alone: Functions of non-manual features in Polish Sign Language. InBarbara Bokus (ed.), Studies in the psychology of language and communication, 289–320. Warszawa: Matrix.
     [Google Scholar]
114. Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk
     2016 The phonetics of head and body movement in the realization of American Sign Language signs. Phonetica73(2). 120–140. 10.1159/000443836
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000443836 [Google Scholar]
115. van der Kooij, Els
     2002 Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
116. van der Kooij, Els, Onno Crasborn & Wim Emmerik
     2006 Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics38(10). 1598–1614. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.07.006 [Google Scholar]
117. Veinberg, Silvana C. & Ronnie B. Wilbur
     1990 A linguistic analysis of the negative headshake in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies681. 217–244. 10.1353/sls.1990.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.1990.0013 [Google Scholar]
118. Waugh, Linda R. & Madeleine Newfield
     1995 Iconicity in the lexicon and its relevance for a theory of morphology. InMarge E. Landsberg (ed.), Syntactic iconicity and linguistic freezes: The human dimension, 189–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110882926.189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110882926.189 [Google Scholar]
119. Weast, Traci Patricia
     2008 Questions in American Sign Language: A quantitative analysis of raised and lowered eyebrows. Arlington, TX: University of Texas PhD dissertation. Available at: www.proquest.com/openview/5b2e390b3f4b6df1aaa086b571732d3c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
     [Google Scholar]
120. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
     1999 Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech42(2/3). 229–250. 10.1177/00238309990420020501
     https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420020501 [Google Scholar]
121. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
     2009 Effects of varying rate of signing on ASL manual signs and nonmanual markers. Language and Speech52(2/3), 245–285. 10.1177/0023830909103174
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830909103174 [Google Scholar]
122. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
     2013 Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. InKaren Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited. An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 196–220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
123. Wilbur, Ronnie B. and Evie Malaia
     2018 A new technique for analyzing narrative prosodic effects in sign languages using motion capture technology. InAnnika Hübl & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Linguistic foundations of narration in spoken and sign languages, 15–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.247.02wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.02wil [Google Scholar]
124. Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Cynthia G. Patschke
     1998 Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics30(3). 275–303. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00003‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00003-4 [Google Scholar]
125. Wilcox, Phyllis P.
     2000 Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
126. Wilcox, Sherman & Andrea Lackner
     2021 Language is an “activity of the whole body”: A memorial to Franz Dotter. Grazer Linguistische Studien931. 225–259. CitetononCRdoi:10.25364/04.48:2021.93.7
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.25364/04.48:2021.93.7 [Google Scholar]
127. Wilson, John
     2015 Lift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NOVt3p5O-A&t=7s
128. Winter, Bodo & Marcus Perlman
     2021 Size sound symbolism in the English lexicon. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics6(1). 79. 10.5334/gjgl.1646
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1646 [Google Scholar]
129. Winter, Bodo, Marcus Perlman, Lynn K. Perry & Gary Lupyan
     2017 Which words are most iconic? Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies18(3). 443–464. 10.1075/is.18.3.07win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.07win [Google Scholar]
130. Winter, Bodo, Márton Sóskuthy, Marcus Perlman & Mark Dingemanse
     2022 Trilled /r/ is associated with roughness, linking sound and touch across spoken languages. Scientific Reports12(1). 1035. 10.1038/s41598‑021‑04311‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04311-7 [Google Scholar]
131. Woll, Bencie & Jechil S. Sieratzki
     1998 Echo phonology: Signs of a link between gesture and speech. Behavioral and Brain Sciences21(4). 531–532. 10.1017/S0140525X98481263
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98481263 [Google Scholar]
132. Zeshan, Ulrike
     2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language80(1). 7–39. 10.1353/lan.2004.0050
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0050 [Google Scholar]