Element contents
Signed Language and Cognitive Grammar
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 December 2024
Summary
This Element presents a Cognitive Grammar (CG) approach to a range of signed language grammatical phenomena. It begins with a background on the history of sign linguistics, focusing on what was a widely held belief that signs are simply gestures. The first section traces the modern linguistic examination of signed languages, focusing on Stokoe and his demonstration that these languages exhibit phonology and duality of patterning. Next, we present some fundamental principles that are foundational for cognitive linguistics and sign linguistics. In a section on Cognitive Grammar, we present a brief overview of CG principles, constructs, and models. Section 4 presents extensive analyses of signed language constructions applying CG, including nominal grounding; the concepts of Place and placing; a CG approach to 'agreement' constructions in signed languages; reported dialogue; grammatical modality; and the grammatical meaning of facial displays. The final section examines the controversial role of gesture in grammatical constructions.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108951326Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 09 January 2025
References
Auwera, Johann van der & Vladimir, A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barasch, Moshe. 1987. Giotto and the language of gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 1999. Agreement as a discourse phenomenon. Folia Linguistica, 33(1–2), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linkstok Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Charles. 1806. Essays on the anatomy of expression in painting. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Borodulina, Darija. 2012. Means of expressing the possibility and necessity in Russian Sign Language. Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 1, 92–95.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Mantovan, Lara (eds.). 2020. A grammar of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Venice: Edizioni Ca’Foscari.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diane., Brentari 2007. Sign language phonology: Issues of iconicity and universality. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 36, 59–80.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 2019. Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, Lucinda Ferreira. 1990. Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian Sign Language. In Fischer, Susan D. & Siple, Patricia (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research Vol. 1: Linguistics (pp. 229–260). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.. 1990. Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.. 2010a. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.. 2010b. Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology yearbook, 3, 219–252.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere, & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen. 2013. Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE): Obligation and epistemic necessity from the Fernández Villabrille dictionary (1851) to the DNLSE (2008). CogniTextes: Revue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive, 10, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camras, Linda A., Oster, Harriet, Bakeman, Roger, et al. 2007. Do infants show distinct negative facial expressions for fear and anger? Emotional expression in 11‐month‐old European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants. Infancy, 11(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace . 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chovil, Nicole. 1991. Discourse-oriented facial displays in conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25(1–4), 163–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2003. Pointing and placing. In Kita, Satoro (ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 243–268). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. http://web.stanford.edu/~clark/2000s/Clark,H.H._Pointingand placing_2003.pdf.Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Smith, Sandra, & Zwets, Martine. 2013. Framing constructed action in British Sign Language narratives. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2013. Agreement as anaphora, anaphora as coreference. In Bakker, Dik & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska (pp. 107–129). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2011. Very atypical agreement indeed. Theoretical Linguistics, 153–160.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Sandler, Wendy. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech, 37(52), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1872. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: J. Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jorio, Andrea & Kendon, Adam. 2001. Gesture in Naples and gesture in classical antiquity: A translation of La mimica degli antichi investigata nel gestire napoletano, Gestural expression of the ancients in the light of Neapolitan gesturing. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
de Morree, Helma M. & Samuele, M. Marcora. 2010. The face of effort: Frowning muscle activity reflects effort during a physical task. Biological Psychology, 85(3), 377–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Morree, Helma M. & Samuele, M. Marcora. 2012. Frowning muscle activity and perception of effort during constant-workload cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(5), 1967–1972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Debras, Camille. 2017. The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture, 16(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dondi, Marco, Teresa Gervasi, Maria, Valente, Angela, et al. 2014. Spontaneous facial expressions of distress in fetuses. In Sousa, & Oliviera, Armando M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Facial Expression (pp. 34–37). Coimbra: IPCDVS. www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco_Dondi/publication/262727826_Spontaneous_Facial_Expressions_of_Distress_in_Fetuses/links/563dc5b208ae8d65c012a30d/Spontaneous-Facial-Expressions-of-Distress-in-Fetuses.pdf.Google Scholar
Dotter, Franz. 2018. Most characteristic elements of sign language texts are intricate mixtures of linguistic and non-linguistic parts, aren’t they? Colloquium: New Philologies, 3(1), 1–62.Google Scholar
Dudis, Paul G. 2004. Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Gerald M. 1987. Neural Darwinism: The theory of neuronal group selection. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369.Google ScholarPubMed
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
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1999. Space and time. In Allwood, Jens & Gärdenfors, Peter (eds.), Cognitive semantics: Meaning and cognition (pp. 131–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2015. Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics, 1, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 2021. Markers of epistemic modality and their origins: Evidence from two unrelated sign languages. Studies in Language, 45(2), 277–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 113–130). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay & Johnston, Trevor. 2014. Elaborating who’s what: A study of constructed action and clause structure in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Gough, Bonnie. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 18(1), 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 2010. Embodied, embedded language use. Ecological Psychology, 22, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 51, 676–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy & Gough, Bonnie. 2000. Morphology in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 3, 103–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianfreda, Gabriele, Volterra, Virginia, & Zuczkowski, Andrzej. 2014. L’espressione dell’incertezza nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica. Journal of Theories and Research in Education, 9(1), 199–234.Google Scholar
Girod, Michel. 1997. La langue des signes: Tome 1, 2, and 3. Dictionnaire bilingue elementaire. Vincennes: International Visual Theatre.Google Scholar
Goodale, Melvyn A. 1998. Vision for perception and vision for action in the primate brain. Novartis Foundation Symposium, 218, 21–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah. 1992. An introduction to task dynamics. In Docherty, Gerard L. & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody (pp. 9–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero-Blanco, Ángel & Salazar-García, Ventura. 2010. The expression of modality in Spanish Sign Language. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar (WP-FDG), 19–42.Google Scholar
Herrmann, Annika. 2008. The expression of modal meaning in German Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. In Perniss, Pamela M., Pfau, Roland, & Steinbach, Markus (eds.), Visible Variation: Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure (pp. 245–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1982. The origin of speech. In William, S.-Y. Wang (ed.), Human communication: Language and its psychobiological bases (pp. 5–12). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Lago, Silvia. (2006). Uso del componente facial para la expresión de la modalidad en lengua de signos española. Ph.D. Universidade de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2006. Visual communication: Signed language and cognition. In Kristiansen, Gitte, Achard, Michel, Dirven, René, & de Ibáñez, Francisco Ruiz Mendoza (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 359–377). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2012. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In Steinbach, Martin, Pfau, Roland, & Woll, Bencie (eds.), Handbook of Sign Languages (34) (pp. 816–840). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry, O’Dea, Barbara, & Shaffer, Barbara. 2001. The construal of events: Passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 1, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry & Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Meier, Richard, Quinto, David, & Cormier, Kearsy (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 199–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarque, Maria Josep & Pascual, Esther. 2015. Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language. eHumanista/IVITRA, 8, 421–445.Google Scholar
Jarque, Maria Josep & Pascual, Esther. 2016. Mixed viewpoints in factive and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In Dancygier, Barbara, Lu, Wei-lun, & Verhagen, Arie (eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 259–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John-Steiner, Vera. 1997. Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert E. & Liddell, Scott K.. 2021. Toward a phonetic description of hand placement on bearings. Sign Language Studies, 22(1), 131–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Schembri, Adam. 2007. Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2017. Languages as semiotically heterogenous systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 30–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2019. Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 37–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward & Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kusters, Annelies. 2021. Introduction: The semiotic repertoire: Assemblages and evaluation of resources. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(2), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Annelies & Sahasrabudhe, Sujit. 2018. Language ideologies on the difference between gesture and sign. Language & Communication, 60, 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackner, Andrea. 2018. Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lackner, Andrea. 2019. Describing non manuals in sign language. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 91(S), 45–103.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan & Grosjean, François. 1980. Recent perspectives on American sign language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2002. The control cycle: Why grammar is a matter of life and death. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2, 193–220.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003. Constructions in cognitive grammar. English Linguistics, 20(1), 41–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2014. Culture and cognition, lexicon and grammar. In Yamaguchi, Masataka, Tay, Dennis, & Blount, Benjamin (eds.), Approaches to language, culture, and cognition: The intersection of cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology (pp. 27–49). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1975. Functional stratigraphy. Chicago Linguistic Society: Parasession on functionalism, 351(14), 307–357.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1979. Grammar as image. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla La Jolla, Cal., 87–126.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991a. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991b. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar (42). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2013. Modals: Striving for control. In Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Carretero, Marta, Hita, Jorge A., & Van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 3–56). Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2016a. Baseline and elaboration. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(3), 405–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2016b. Nominal structure in cognitive grammar. Lubin: Marie-Curie Skłodowska University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. Evidentiality in cognitive grammar. In Marín-Arrese, Juana Isabel, Haßler, Gerda, & Carretero, Marta (eds.), Evidentiality revisited (pp. 13–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1990. Four functions of a locus: Reexamining the structure of space in ASL. In Lucas, Cell (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues (pp. 176–198). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1995. Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In Emmorey, Karen & Riley, Judy (eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 19–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1998. Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2000a. Blended spaces and deixis in sign language discourse. In McNeill, David (ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 331–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2000b. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Emmorey, Karen & Lane, Harlan (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 303–320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Johnson, Robert E.. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 195–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Johnson, Robert E.. 2019. Sign language articulators on phonetic bearings. Sign Language Studies, 20(1), 132–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard, P. Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(3/4), 95–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, Emar, De Schepper, Kees, & Zwets, Martine. 2013. The pragmatics of person and imperatives in sign language of the Netherlands. Research in Language, 11(4), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, Rocío & Wilcox, Sherman. 2019. Pointing and placing: Nominal grounding in Argentine Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(1), 85–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massone, Maria Ignacia & Anabel Martinez, Rocío. 2012. Capítulo 7: Morfología de la LSA: Procesos flexionales. In Massone, Maria Ignacia & Martinez, Rocío Anabel (eds.), Curso de Lengua de Señas Argentina (pp. 1–12). Mendoza: Cultura Sorda.Google Scholar
Matlock, Teenie. 2005. Fictive motion as cognitive simulation. Memory and Cognition, 32, 1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKee, Rachel & Wallingford, Sophia. 2011. “So, well, whatever”: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 14(2), 213–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, Robert T. 1924. Exercise in education and medicine (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 2000. Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard P. & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2013. The points of language. Humana.Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24, 151–176.Google ScholarPubMed
Meir, Irit. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 86, 865–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Lucas, Ceil (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities (pp. 255–271). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol. 2000. SignStream™: A Database Tool for Research on Visual-Gestural Language. Boston, MA: American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project No. 10, Boston University.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42, 143–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2016. Analyses of the semantics of mood. In Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of mood and modality (pp. 68–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2016. Embodying metaphors: Signed language interpreters at work. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johan. 2016. The Oxford handbook of modality and mood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Okrent, A. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics (or at least give us some criteria to work with). In Meier, Richard, Cormier, Kearsy, & Quinto-Pozos, David (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp. 175–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oster, Harriet, Hegley, Douglas, & Nagel, Linda. 1992. Adult judgments and fine-grained analysis of infant facial expressions: Testing the validity of a priori coding formulas. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1115–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asli., Özyürek 2012. Gesture. In Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus & Woll, Bencie (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook (pp. 626–646). Berlin: Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325.626.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1986. Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. Proceedings from Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching.Google Scholar
Pereiro, Carmen Cabeza & Fernández Soneira, Ana. 2004. The expression of time in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). Sign Language & Linguistics, 7(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela M. 2007. Space and iconicity in German sign language (DGS). Nijmegen, MPI Series in Psycholinguistics, 45.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Quer, Josep. 2007. On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs, 188, 1–30.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Steinbach, Markus. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 683–695). Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199586783-e-56.Google Scholar
Port, Robert F. & Leary, Adam P.. 2005. Against formal phonology. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 81(4), 927–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1987. Duality of patterning: Responding to Armstrong & Stokoe. Sign Language Studies, 55, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 2011. The meaning of duality of patterning and its importance in language evolution. Sign Language Studies, 51, 1–33.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2011. When agreeing to disagree is not enough: Further arguments for the linguistic status of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2016. Reporting with and without role shift: Sign language strategies of complementation. In Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus, & Herrmann, Annika (eds.), A matter of complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages (pp. 204–230). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503238-009/html.Google Scholar
Rovelli, Carlo. 2014. Reality is not what it seems: The journey to quantum gravity. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Salazar-García, Ventura. 2018. Modality in Spanish Sign Language (LSE) revisited: A functional account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 391–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltzman, Elliot & Scott Kelso, J. A.. 2009. Skilled actions: A task-dynamic approach. Psychological Review, 94, 1–48.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech, 42, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2009. Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies/Revue de l’Association Internationale de Sémiotique, 174, 241–275.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, Cormier, Kearsy, & Fenlon, Jordan. 2018. Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb “agreement” in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 57(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1976. Notes toward a theory of culture. In Basso, Keith & Selby, Henry A. (eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 197–220). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies, 3, 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2004. Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2012. Reported speech as an evidentiality strategy in American Sign Language. In Dancygier, Barbara & Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 139–155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara & Janzen, Terry. 2016. Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In Nuyts, Jan & van der Auwera, Johann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Mood and Modality (pp. 448–469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara, Josep Jarque, Maria, & Wilcox, Sherman. 2011. The expression of modality: Conversational data from two signed languages. In Nogueira, Márcia Teixeira & Lopes, Maria Fábiola Vasconcelos (eds.), Modo e modalidade: gramática, discurso e interação (pp. 11–39). Fortaleza: Edições UFC.Google Scholar
Shenhav, Amitai, Musslick, Sebastian, Lieder, Falk, et al. 2017. Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Adelaide Hercília Pescatori & Nogueira Xavier, André. 2018. Libras and Articulatory Phonology. Gradus – Brazilian Journal of Laboratory Phonology, 3(1), 103–124.Google Scholar
Siyavoshi, Sara. 2019. Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics, 30(4), 655–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siyavoshi, Sara & Wilcox, Sherman. 2021. Exerting control: The grammatical meaning of facial displays in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(4), 609–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 2005. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. 1960. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 10(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokoe, William C. 1980a. Review: The Signs of Language by Edward S. Klima and Ursula Bellugi. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 56(4), 893–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf (8 Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers). Buffalo: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1980b. Sign language structure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 9, 365–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1991. Semantic phonology. Sign Language Studies, 71, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1994. Discovering a neglected language. Sign Language Studies, 85, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Casterline, Dorothy, & Croneberg, Carl. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. Jr. 1948. The sources of Sir Launfal: Lanval and Graelent. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 63(2), 392–404.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. Jr. 1955. The double problem of Sir Degaré. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 70(3), 518–534.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The manufacture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, William C. 1964. Studies in ethnoscience. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2018. The targeting system of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1986. Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 11–32). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Berlin.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language in the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Esther & Linda, B. Smith. 1994. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrone, Martha E., Nam, Hosung, Saltzman, Elliot, Mathur, Gaurav, & Goldstein, Louis M.. 2010. Prosody and movement in American Sign Language: A task-dynamics approach. Speech Prosody, 100957, 1–4.Google Scholar
Van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Walls, Gordon. 1942. The vertebrate retina and its adaptive radiation. Bloomfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1987. American Sign Language: Linguistic and applied dimensions. Boston, MA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1990. Intonation and focus in American Sign Language. Proceedings Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), 7, 320–331.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999. Stress in ASL: Empirical Evidence and Linguistic Issues. Language and Speech, 42, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2013. The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign language and Linguistics, 16, 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin. 1996. Deontic and epistemic modals in ASL: A discourse analysis. In Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language (pp. 481–492). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Phyllis Perrin. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4, 43–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2009. Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Martínez, Rocío. 2020. The conceptualization of space: Places in signed language discourse. Frontiers In Psychology, 11, 1406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, Sherman & Occhino, Corrine. 2016. Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman, Rossini, Paolo, & Antinoro Pizzuto, Elena. 2010. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign languages (pp. 332–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Shaffer, Barbara. 2006. Modality in American Sign Language. In Frawley, William (ed.), The expression of modality (pp. 207–237). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Shaffer, Barbara. 2017. Evidentiality and information source in signed languages. In Alexandra, Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), Oxford handbook of evidentiality (pp. 741–754). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Wilcox, Phyllis. 2003. Feeling metonymy and metaphor: Evidence from American Sign Language derivational morphology. International Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman, Wilcox, Phyllis, & Josep Jarque, Maria. 2003. Mappings in conceptual space: Metonymy, metaphor, and iconicity in two signed languages. Jezikoslovlje, 4(1), 139–156.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Perrin Wilcox, Phyllis. 1995. The gestural expression of modality in American Sign Language. In Bybee, Joan & Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 135–162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman, Martínez, Rocío & Diego, Morales. 2022. The conceptualization of space in signed languages: Placing the signer in narratives. In Jucker, Andreas & Hausendorf, Heiko (ed.), Pragmatics of space (pp. 63–94). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Betsy. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In Emmorey, Karen & Reilly, Judy (eds.), Language, gesture, and space (pp. 87–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Xavier, André Nogueira & Wilcox, Sherman. 2014. Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Linguistic Typology, 18, 449–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 80(1), 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.