Article published In:
Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 391407
References
Acquaviva, P
(2008) Lexical plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Attarde, I. P
(2007) Encyclopedic graded grammar, vol. 11. Lulu. (e-book)Google Scholar
Bergman, B
(1983) Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In J. Kyle & B. Woll (Eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language (pp. 3–9). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bergman, B., & Engberg-Pedersen, E
(2010) Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In D. Brentari (Ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey (pp. 74–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Björkstrand, T
(2016) Svenskt teckenspråkslexikon. Stockholm: Avdelningen för teckenspråk, Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W
(1994) The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Börstell, C
(2011) Revisiting Reduplication: Toward a Description of Reduplication in Predicative Signs in Swedish Sign Language. MA Thesis, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.
Cabredo Hofherr, P., & Laca, B
(Eds.) (2012) Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, O
(2011) The other hand in sign language phonology. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 11 (pp. 223–240). Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, O., & Sáfár, A
(2016) An annotation scheme to investigate the form and function of hand dominance in the Corpus NGT. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & A. Herrmann (Eds.), A matter of complexity (pp. 231–251). Boston, MA/Berlin & Preston: De Gruyter Mouton & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, B
(1893) Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., Rentelis, R., Schembri, A., Rowley, K., Adam, R., & Woll, B
(2014) BSL Signbank. BSL SignBank : A Lexical Database of British Sign Language (First Edition). London: Deafness Cognition and Language (DCAL) Research Centre, University College London. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Frishberg, N
(1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51(3), 696–719. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greftegreff, I., & Handberg, T
(2015) Norwegian Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 649–676). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M
(2007) Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 2087–2115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S
(2006) Reduplication. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 417–419). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, T
(2014) Auslan Signbank. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A
(1999) On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2(2), 115–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Wälchli, B
(2001) The Circum-Baltic languages. In Ö. Dahl & M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology (Vol. 551, pp. 615–750). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, J
(2015) Cross-categorial Singular and Plural Reference in Sign Language. PhD Thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W
(2016) Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations for two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(1), 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LSF Dico
(n.d.). Metz: INJS (Institut National de Jeunes Sourds) de Metz. (Retrieved from [URL])
McKee, D., & Kennedy, G
(2000) Lexical comparisons of signs from American, Australian, British and New Zealand Sign Languages. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McKee, D., McKee, R. L., Pivac Alexander, S., Pivac, L., & Vale, M
(n.d.). Online Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language. Deaf Studies Research Unit, Victoria University of Wellington. (Retrieved from [URL]). DOI: DOI logo
Meir, I., & Sandler, W
(2008) A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C. A., & Aronoff, M
(Eds.) (2012) Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa, Center for Research in Language, UCSD.Google Scholar
Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M
(2004) Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 371–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Millet, A., Niederberger, N., & Blondel, M
(2015) French Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 274–316). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., & Poole Nash, J. C
(2015) American Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 31–70). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A.-L
(2007) The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In M. Vermeerbergen, L. Leeson, & O. Crasborn (Eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Current issues in linguistic theory, 2811 (pp. 163–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, C., & Perlmutter, D. M
(1987) American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 51, 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M
(2003) Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 6(1), 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10(2), 135–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savir, H
(1992) Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.Google Scholar
Sematos
(n.d.). Dictionary LSF. (Retrieved from [URL])
SignWiki Ísland. (n.d
Retrieved from [URL])
Stokoe, W. C
(1960) Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf. In Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers (No. 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, T., & Newport, E. L
(1978) How many seats in a chair?: The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In P. Siple (Ed.), Understanding language through sign language research (pp. 91–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suvi – Suomalainen viittomakielen verkkosanakirja
(2013) Kuurojen Liitto. (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Tegnordbok
(n.d.). Statped. (Retrieved from [URL])
Tennant, R. A., & Gluszak Brown, M
(2010) The American Sign Language handshape dictionary (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Thorvaldsdóttir, K. L., & Stefánsdóttir, V
(2015) Icelandic Sign Language. In J. B. Jepsen, G. De Clerck, S. Lutalo-Kiingi, & W. B. McGregor (Eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook (pp. 409–429). Berlin/Boston, MA & Preston: De Gruyter & Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, P. M
(1982) Local and general markedness. Language, 58(4), 832–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, H
(1996) On the other hand. Lingua, 981, 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, E
(2001) Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. F. Taub, & A. M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., De Meulder, M., & Vermeerbergen, M
(2016) From erasure to recognition (and back again?): The case of Flemish Sign Language. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy, and Practice. (Vol. 31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Herreweghe, M., Vermeerbergen, M., De Weerdt, K., & Van Mulders, K
(2004) Woordenboek Nederlands – Vlaamse Gebarentaal / Vlaamse Gebarentaal – Nederlands (online). (Retrieved from [URL])Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A
(1988) Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In A. Wierzbicka (Ed.), The semantics of grammar (pp. 499–560). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, E. J
(2010) On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics (pp. 1–24). Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jr., J. C
(1976) Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 101, 81–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Bradley, Chuck & Ronnie Wilbur
2023. Visual Form and Event Semantics Predict Transitivity in Silent Gestures: Evidence for Compositionality. Cognitive Science 47:8 DOI logo
Brentari, Diane, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Laura Horton, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
2024. The organization of verb meaning in Lengua de Señas Nicaragüense (LSN): Sequential or simultaneous structures?. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2  pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29:1  pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Di Garbo, Francesca
2020. Plural marking on noun-associated forms. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:3  pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2020. Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2  pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
GÜÇLÜTÜRK, Yasemin & İclâl ERGENÇ
2022. Türk İşaret Dilinde Çoklu Eylemlere İlişkin Bir Sınıflandırma Önerisi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 33:1  pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Loos, Cornelia, Austin German & Richard P. Meier
2022. Simultaneous structures in sign languages: Acquisition and emergence. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Moita, Mara, Ana Maria Abreu & Ana Mineiro
2023. Iconicity in the emergence of a phonological system?. Journal of Language Evolution 8:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1  pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
SEVCIKOVA SEHYR, ZED & KAREN EMMOREY
2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11:2  pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
Woodin, Greg, Bodo Winter, Marcus Perlman, Jeannette Littlemore, Teenie Matlock & Dennis Tay
2020. 'Tiny numbers' are actually tiny: Evidence from gestures in the TV News Archive. PLOS ONE 15:11  pp. e0242142 ff. DOI logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 may 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.