Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-dqfph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-25T12:32:31.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Paradox of Sign Language Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Irit Meir ,
Mark Aronoff  and
Wendy Sandler
Irit Meir*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
Mark Aronoff*
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University
Wendy Sandler*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa
*
Meir, Department of Hebrew Language and Department of Communication Disorders University of Haifa Haifa 31905, Israel [imeir@univ.haifa.ac.il]
Aronoff, Department of Linguistics Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794 [mark.aronoff@stonybrook.edu]
Sandler, Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa Haifa 31905, Israel [wsandler@research.haifa.ac.il]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sign languages have two strikingly different kinds of morphological structure: sequential and simultaneous. The simultaneous morphology of two unrelated sign languages, American and Israeli Sign Language, is very similar and is largely inflectional, while what little sequential morphology we have found differs significantly and is derivational. We show that at least two pervasive types of inflectional morphology, verb agreement and classifier constructions, are iconically grounded in spatiotemporal cognition, while the sequential patterns can be traced to normal historical development. We attribute the paucity of sequential morphology in sign languages to their youth. This research both brings sign languages much closer to spoken languages in their morphological structure and shows how the medium of communication contributes to the structure of languages.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 301 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adamson, Lilian, and Smith, Norval. 1994. Sranan. In Arends et al., 219–32.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arends, Jacques, Muysken, Pieter; and Smith, Norval (eds.) 1994. Pidgins and creoles: An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, David F., Stokoe, William C.; and Wilcox, Sherman E.. 1995. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1999. Gender agreement as morphology. Proceedings of the first Mediterranean Conference on Morphology, ed. by Booij, Geert, Ralli, Angela, and Scalise, Sergio, 7–18. Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit; and Sandler, Wendy. 2000. Universal and particular aspects of sign language morphology. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 1–34.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol; and Sandler, Wendy. 2003. Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages. In Emmorey 2003, 53–84.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Baker, Philip. 2003. Reduplication in Mauritian Creole, with notes on reduplication in Reunion Creole. In Kouwenberg, 211–18.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 2003. Pidgin inflectional morphology and its implications for creole morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 2002. 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Smith, Norval; and Veenstra, Tonjes. 1994. Saramaccan. In Arends et al., 165–78.Google Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula, and Fischer, Susan. 1972. A comparison of signed and spoken language. Cognition 1. 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Brita. 1983. Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, ed. by Kyle, Jim and Woll, Bencie, 3–9. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1993. Agreement and pro-drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1993, ed. by Drijkoningen, Frank and Hengeveld, Kees, 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1994. An auxiliary verb in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Perspectives on sign language structure: Papers from the fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, vol. 1, ed. by Ahlgren, Inger, Bergman, Brita, and Brennan, Mary, 37–53. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1990. Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1988. Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. Chicago Linguistic Society 24. 16–27.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1990. Theoretical foundations of American Sign Language phonology. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, and Janda, Richard. 2001. Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems. Language Sciences 23. 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, Geoffrey R. 1982. On the nature of ASL as a monosyllabic language. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA, December.Google Scholar
Coulter, Geoffrey R. (ed.) 1993. Current issues in ASL phonology. (Phonetics and phonology 3.) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette (ed.) 1986. Noun classification and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959 [1916]. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel (ed.) 1999. Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against Creole exceptionalism. Language 79. 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuchar, Margaret. 1984. British Sign Language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Noun classes. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays on semantics and syntax, 157–84. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dobrin, Lise. 1998. The morphosyntactic reality of phonological form. Yearbook of Morphology 1997. 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1988. On the complementarity of subject and subject-verb agreement. Agreement in natural language, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles, 201–18. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 1995. Processing the dynamic visual-spatial morphology of signed languages. Morphological aspects of language processing: Crosslinguistic perspectives, ed. by Feldman, Laurie M., 29–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, and Lane, Harlan (eds.) 2000. The signs of language revisited. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1995. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1978. Sign language and creoles. In Siple, 309–31.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1996. The role of auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 98. 103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D., and Gough, Bonnie. 1978. Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18. 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D., and Siple, Patricia (eds.) 1990. Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, Suzanne. 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortune, Reo. 1942. Arapesh. (Publications of the American Ethnological Society 19.) New York: J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51. 696–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, James P., and Goodhart, Wendy. 1988. American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. Language learning and deafness, ed. by Strong, Michael, 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 149–89. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 1999. Typologie des systèmes de classification nominale. Faits de Langue 14. 101–22.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette. 2000. A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In Senft 2000b, 50–92.Google Scholar
Groce, Nora Ellen. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. (North-Holland linguistic series 25.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hamano, Shoko Saito. 1986. The sound-symbolic system of Japanese. Gainesville: University of Florida dissertation.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, John. 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janis, Wynne D. 1992. Morphosyntax of the ASL verb phrase. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 1991. Spatial syntax and spatial semantics in the inflection of signs for the marking of person and location in Auslan. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 2. 29–62.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as ‘grammaticalization’? Language Sciences 23. 163–86.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judith, Coppola, Marie; and Senghas, Ann. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In DeGraff 1999, 179–237.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro. 1997. Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics 35. 379–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia (ed.) 2003. Twice as meaningful: Reduplication in pidgins, creoles, and other contact languages. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia, and LaCharité, Darlene. 2003. ‘More of the same’: Iconicity in reduplication and the evidence for substrate transfer in the genesis of Caribbean Creole languages. In Kouwenberg, 7–18.Google Scholar
Kyle, James, and Woll, Bencie. 1985. Sign language: The study of Deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan, Pillard, Richard C.; and French, Mary. 2000. Origins of the American Deaf-world: Assimilating and differentiating societies and their relation to genetic patterning. In Emmorey & Lane, 77–100.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire. 1998. Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott. 1984. THINK and BELIEVE: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language 60. 372–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1998. Grounded blends, gestures, and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics 9. 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In Emmorey & Lane, 303–20.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K., and Johnson, Robert E.. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 445–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1991. Universal grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2002. Where are all the modality effects? In Meier et al., 241–62.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane, and Klima, Edward. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Fischer & Siple, 191–210.Google Scholar
Mandel, Mark A. 1981. Phonotactics and morphophonology in ASL. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1991. Morphology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 373–418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 24. 2. 333–79.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Hale, Ken. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 487–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, Fiona. 1997. Noun classification in Wolof: When affixes are not renewed. Studies in African Linguistics 26. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 1998. Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74. 788–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1982. Icons, analogues, and morphemes: The acquisition of verb agreement in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1984. Sign as creole. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 201–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. In Fischer & Siple, 175–90.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 1993. A psycholinguistic perspective on phonological segmentation in sign and speech. In Coulter 1993, 169–88.Google Scholar
Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy; and Quinto-Pozos, David (eds.) 2002. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1964 [1937]. Introduction á l’étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes. 8th edn. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1995. Explaining backwards verbs in ISL: Syntactic-semantic interaction. Proceedings of the 4th European Congress on Sign Language Research, ed. by Bos, Helene and Schermer, Trudy, 105–19. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998a. Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics 1. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1998b. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem dissertation.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1999. A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2. 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2001. Verb classifiers as noun incorporation in Israeli Sign Language. Yearbook of Morphology 1999. 295–315.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 413–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, and Sandler, Wendy. 2004. Safa bamerxav: Eshnav lesfat hasimanim hayisraelit [Language in space: A window on Israeli Sign Language]. Haifa: University of Haifa Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60. 847–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namir, Lila, and Schlesinger, Izchak M.. 1978. The grammar of sign language. Sign languages of the deaf ed. by Schlesinger, Izchak M., 97–140. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23. 187–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1981. Constraints on structure: Evidence from American Sign Language and language learning. Aspects of the development of competence (Minnesota symposia on child psychology 14), ed. by Collins, W. Andrew, 93–124. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1983. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A., and Humphries, Tom. 1988. Deaf in America: Voices from a culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A., and Perlmutter, David. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 335–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 407–42.Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena, Giuranna, Enza; and Gambino, Giuseppe. 1990. Manual and nonmanual morphology in Italian Sign Language: Grammatical constraints and discourse processes. Sign language research: Theoretical issues, ed. by Lucas, Ceil, 83–102. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Post, Marike. 1994. Fa d’Ambu. In Arends et al., 191–204.Google Scholar
Rathmann, Christian, and Mathur, Gaurav. 2002. Is verb agreement the same crossmodally? In Meier et al., 370–404.Google Scholar
Roberts, Sarah Julianne. 1998. The role of diffusion in the genesis of Hawaiian Creole. Language 74. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1986. The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 50. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1987. Assimilation and feature hierarchy in American Sign Language. Chicago Linguistic Society 23. 266–78.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1990. Temporal aspects and ASL phonology. In Fischer & Siple, 7–35.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1993a. A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology 10/2. 243–80.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1993b. Linearization of phonological tiers in ASL. In Coulter 1993, 103–29.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1993c. Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. The Linguistic Review 10. 337–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1996a. A negative suffix in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the fifth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Montreal, September 19-22.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1996b. Phonological features and feature classes: The case of movements in sign language. Lingua 98. 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. Studies on the phonological word, ed. by Hall, T. Alan and Kleinhenz, Ursula, 223–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2005. Phonology, phonetics, and the nondominant hand. Papers in laboratory phonology: Varieties of phonological competence, ed. by Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, Douglas, and Best, Catherine. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2005. Sign language and linguistic universais. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Laberge, Suzanne. 1974. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. Pidgins and creoles: Current trends and prospects, ed. by DeCamp, David and Hancock, Ian, 73–84. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Sauvageot, S. 1967. Note sur la classification nominale en Bainouk. La classification nominale dans les langues négro-africaines, ed. by Manessy, Gabriel, 225–36. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam. 2003. Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Emmorey 2003, 3–34.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunther. 2000a. What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In Senft 2000b, 11–49.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunther (ed.) 2000b. Systems of nominal classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann. 1995. Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann. 2000. The development of early spatial morphology in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Proceedings of the 24th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by Howel, S. Catherine, Fish, Sarah A., and Keith-Lucas, Thea, 696–707. Boston: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Coppola, Marie, Newport, Elissa; and Supalla, Ted. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary, and Greenhill, Annabel, 550–61. Boston: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Shepard-Kegl, Judy A. 1985. Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia (ed.) 1978. Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Wayne H. 1990. Evidence for auxiliaries in Taiwan Sign Language. In Fischer & Siple, 211–28.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. (Studies in linguistics occasional papers 8.) Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo, Department of Anthropology and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Casterline, Dorothy C.; and Croneberg, Carl G.. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Sam. 1991. Manually Coded English: The modality question in signed language development. Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 2: Psychology, ed. by Siple, Patricia A. and Fischer, Susan D., 85–109. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1986. The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Craig, 181–214.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 1998. Reconstructing early ASL grammar through historical films. A talk presented at the sixth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Linguistics, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted, and Newport, Elissa. 1978. How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Siple, 181–214.Google Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel, and Woll, Bencie. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry G. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 93. 121–43.Google Scholar
Welmers, William E. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Woll, Bencie, Sutton-Spence, Rachel; and Elton, Frances. 2001. Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. The sociolinguistics of sign language, ed. by Lucas, Ceil, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 1974. Implicational variation in American Sign Language: Negative incorporation. Sign Language Studies 5. 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 1978. Historical basis of American Sign Language. In Siple, 333–48.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 372–86.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language 59. 502–13.Google Scholar

A correction has been issued for this article:

Correction