Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages.
- Published: 01 Feb 2018 Journal: Frontiers in Psychology, volume 9 (eissn: 1664-1078,
Copyright policy)
- Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
- University of Birmingham United Kingdom
- Macquarie University Australia
- University of London - University College London United Kingdom
- Funder: Research Council UK (RCUK)
- Project Code: ES/K003364/1
- Funding stream: ESRC
Aronoff M.Meir I.Sandler W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043 22223926 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]
Bayley R.Lucas C.Rose M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: the case of 1 handshape. Lang. Var. Change 14 19–53. 10.1017/S0954394502141020 [DOI]
Bentz C.Winter B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Lang. Dyn. Change 3 1–27.
Bergman B.DahlÖ (1994). “Ideophones in Sign Language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish sign language,” in Tense, Aspect and Action - Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, eds Bache C.Basboll H.Lindberg C. E. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 397–422.
Corbett G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cormier K.Fenlon J. (2009). “Possession in the visual-gestural modality: how possession is expressed in British sign language,” in The Expression of Possession, ed. McGregor W. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 389–422. [OpenAIRE]
Cuxac C.Sallandre M. (2007). “Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity,” in Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparative Structures, Concepts, and Methodologies, eds Pizzuto E.Pietrandrea P.Simone R. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 13–33. [OpenAIRE]
Dahl O. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 10.1075/slcs.71 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]
de Beuzeville L.Johnston T.Schembri A. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: a corpus-based investigation. Sign Lang. Linguist. 12 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [OpenAIRE] [DOI]
De Vos C. (2012). Sign-Spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language in Bali Inscribes its Signing Space. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Emmorey K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fenlon J.Schembri A.Rentelis R.Cormier K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British sign language: the case of the ‘1’ hand configuration. Lang. Commun. 22 69–91. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001 23805018 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]
Fischer S. D. (1978). “Sign language and creoles,” in Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research, ed. Siple P. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 309–331.
Gray M. (2013). Aspect Marking in Australian Sign Language: A Process of Gestural Verb Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.
Janzen T.O’Dea B.Shaffer B. (2001). The construal of events: passives in American sign language. Sign Lang. Stud. 1 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]
- University of Birmingham United Kingdom
- Macquarie University Australia
- University of London - University College London United Kingdom
- Funder: Research Council UK (RCUK)
- Project Code: ES/K003364/1
- Funding stream: ESRC
Aronoff M.Meir I.Sandler W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81 301–344. 10.1353/lan.2005.0043 22223926 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]
Bayley R.Lucas C.Rose M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: the case of 1 handshape. Lang. Var. Change 14 19–53. 10.1017/S0954394502141020 [DOI]
Bentz C.Winter B. (2013). Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Lang. Dyn. Change 3 1–27.
Bergman B.DahlÖ (1994). “Ideophones in Sign Language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish sign language,” in Tense, Aspect and Action - Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, eds Bache C.Basboll H.Lindberg C. E. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 397–422.
Corbett G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cormier K.Fenlon J. (2009). “Possession in the visual-gestural modality: how possession is expressed in British sign language,” in The Expression of Possession, ed. McGregor W. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 389–422. [OpenAIRE]
Cuxac C.Sallandre M. (2007). “Iconicity and arbitrariness in French sign language: highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity,” in Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparative Structures, Concepts, and Methodologies, eds Pizzuto E.Pietrandrea P.Simone R. (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), 13–33. [OpenAIRE]
Dahl O. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 10.1075/slcs.71 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]
de Beuzeville L.Johnston T.Schembri A. (2009). The use of space with indicating verbs in Auslan: a corpus-based investigation. Sign Lang. Linguist. 12 53–82. 10.1075/sll.12.1.03deb [OpenAIRE] [DOI]
De Vos C. (2012). Sign-Spatiality in Kata Kolok: How a Village Sign Language in Bali Inscribes its Signing Space. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
Emmorey K. (2002). Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fenlon J.Schembri A.Rentelis R.Cormier K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British sign language: the case of the ‘1’ hand configuration. Lang. Commun. 22 69–91. 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.09.001 23805018 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]
Fischer S. D. (1978). “Sign language and creoles,” in Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research, ed. Siple P. (New York, NY: Academic Press), 309–331.
Gray M. (2013). Aspect Marking in Australian Sign Language: A Process of Gestural Verb Modification. Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW.
Janzen T.O’Dea B.Shaffer B. (2001). The construal of events: passives in American sign language. Sign Lang. Stud. 1 281–310. 10.1353/sls.2001.0009 [OpenAIRE] [DOI]