Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 43:4 (2019) ► pp.941–996

Clause constituents, arguments and the question of grammatical relations in Auslan (Australian Sign Language)

A corpus-based study

ORCID logo | Macquarie University
This study investigates clause constructions in Auslan. It looks at the alignment of constituent semantic role with constituent position and order in clauses, changes in the morphology of signs according to position and/or role, and the interpretation of omitted arguments. The aim is to determine if there are grammatical relations in Auslan. The most frequent constituent order parallels English, thus Auslan might be said to also instantiate a basic SVO word order. However, every possible constituent order pattern is also attested without there being other coding and behavioural properties associated with grammatical relations that could explain this flexibility. I conclude that constituent order in Auslan is the result of the interaction of pragmatic and semantic factors, visual representation, and language contact with English, rather than autochthonous grammatical relations. Auslan grammar draws on both so-called gestural and so-called linguistic resources at the clause level, not just at the word (sign) level.
Keywords: syntax, grammar, grammatical roles, grammatical relations, Auslan, sign language, corpus, syntacticization, gesture, semiotics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Symbolic units
    • 2.2Clauses
    • 2.3Grammatical relations
  • 3.Previous research
    • 3.1Other signed languages
    • 3.2Auslan
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1The source of the data
    • 4.2Study specific data preparation and annotation
      • 4.2.1Sign aligned annotations
      • 4.2.2Clause aligned annotations
      • 4.2.3Semantico-syntactic roles
      • 4.2.4Constructed action
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Coding properties
      • 5.1.1Constituent order
        • 5.1.1.1Transitive clauses
        • 5.1.1.2Intransitive clauses
        • 5.1.1.3Verbless attributive clauses
        • 5.1.1.4Doubling constructions
        • 5.1.1.5Summary of constituent order
      • 5.1.2Other potential coding properties
        • 5.1.2.1Morphological coding mechanisms
        • 5.1.2.2Verb modification and constructed action
        • 5.1.2.3Agent defocussing (‘passives’)
      • 5.1.3Summary of coding properties
    • 5.2Behavioural properties
      • 5.2.1Obligatory syntactic slots
      • 5.2.2Syntactic pivots
      • 5.2.3Distinctive constituent orders in subordinate clauses
      • 5.2.4Summary of behavioural properties
    • 5.3Summary of results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Transitivity and omitted arguments
    • 6.2Morphology, enactment & gesture
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18035.joh
References (120)
References
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, California: CSLI.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where Did All the Arguments Go? Argument-Changing Properties of Classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1991. Grammatical Relations: The evidence against their necessity and universality. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1983. Intonation and gesture. American Speech 581. 156–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In H. Bos & T. Schermer (eds.), Sign Language Research 1994: Proceedings of the Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1–3, 1994, 121–47. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1997. Sign languages & language universals: the status of order and position in grammar. Sign Language Studies 911. 101–70.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis & Collette Dubuisson. 1995. Grammar, order and position of Wh- signs in Quebec Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 871. 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny. 1999. Rhythmic temporal patterns in the singing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2–3). 177–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyes Braem, P., Fournier, M.-L., Rickli, F., Corazza, S., Franchi, M.-L., & Volterra, V. (1990). A Comparison of Techniques for Expressing Semantic Roles and Locative Relations in Two Different Sign Languages. In W. H. Edmondson & F. Karlsson (Eds.), SLR ’87 Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research , Lappeenranta, Finland July 15-19, 1987 (pp. 114–120). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Beuzeville, Louise, Trevor Johnston & Adam Schembri. 2009. The Use of Space with Indicating Verbs in Auslan: A corpus based investigation. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1). 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2012. Sentence types. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 292–315. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, Deborah. 2011. Using early ASL word order to shed light on word order variability in sign language. In M. Andersen, K. Bentzen & M. Westergaard (eds.), Variation in the Input: Studies in The Acquisition of Word Order (Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics), 157–77. The Netherlands: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). Creating Language: Integrating Evolution, Acquisition, and Processing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coerts, Jane. 1994. Constituent Order in Sign Language of The Netherlands. In M. Brennan & G. H. Turner (eds.), Word Order Issues in Sign Language. Working papers, 47–72. Durham, UK: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Cogill-Koez, Dorothea. 2000a. Signed language classifier predicates: linguistic structures or schematic visual representation? Sign Language and Linguistics 3(2). 153–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. A model of signed language ‘classifier predicates’ as templated visual representation. Sign Language and Linguistics 3(2). 209–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In W. P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1988. Coreference and conjunction reduction in grammar and discourse. In J. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Jordan Fenlon & Adam Schembri. 2015a. Indicating verbs in British Sign Language favour motivated use of space. Open Linguistics 11. 684–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, Sandra Smith & Sehyr Sevcikova. 2015b. Rethinking constructed action. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Els van der Kooij & Johan Ros. 2012. On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a single language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(1). 1–21.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Christian. 2000. La Langue des Signes Française (LSF): Les voies de l’iconicité. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Danes, Frantisek (ed.). 1974. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Academia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deuchar, Margaret. 1978. Sign Language Diglossia in a British Deaf Community. Sign Language Studies 171. 347–56.Google Scholar
. 1983. Is British Sign Language an SVO Language? In J. G. Kyle & B. Woll (eds.), Language in Sign: an international perspective on sign language, 69–76. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551(59–138). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997a. Are grammatical relations universal? In J. L. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language Function and Language Type, 115–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997b. On the Six-Way Word Order Typology. Studies in Language (21). 69–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Order of Subject, Object and Verb. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (eds.), World atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, [URL]
Enfield, Nick J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Sign, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elizabeth. 2002. Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: topic and subject. In A. Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, Sign, and the Evolution of Language (Publications in General Linguistics 3), 5–40. Turku, Finland: University of Turku.Google Scholar
Fenlon, Jordan, Adam Schembri & Kearsy Cormier. 2018. Modification of indicating verbs in British Sign Language: A corpus-based study. Language 94(1). 84–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay. 2012. The grammar of depiction: Exploring gesture and language in Australian Sign Language (Auslan). Sydney: Macquarie University Department of Linguistics thesis.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay and Gabrielle Hodge. 2018. Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 91 (Article 716). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay & Trevor Johnston. 2014. Elaborating who’s what: A study of depiction and grammar in Auslan (Australian Sign Language). Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 193–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In C. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. & Wynne Janis. 1990. Verb Sandwiches in ASL. In S. Prillwitz & T. Vollhaber (eds.), Current Trends in European Sign Language Research: Proceedings of the 3rd European Congress on Sign Language Research Hamburg July 26–29, 1989, 279–94. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. A. 1976. The Manifestation of Subject, Object, and Topic in American Sign Language. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 125–48. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1974. The place of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ in the system of linguistic description. In F. Danes (ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective, 43–53. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 119–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle. 2013. Patterns from a signed language corpus: Clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Sydney: Macquarie University, Department of Linguistics doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabrielle & Trevor Johnston. 2014. Points, depictions, gestures and enactment: Partly lexical and non-lexical signs as core elements of single clause-like units in Auslan (Australian sign language). Australian Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 262–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantunen, Tommi. 2008. Fixed and Free: Order of the Verbal Predicate and Its Core Arguments in Declarative Transitive Clauses in Finish Sign Language. SKY Journal of Linguistics 211. 83–123.Google Scholar
. 2013. Ellipsis in Finnish Sign Language. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(03). 303–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Constructed Action, the Clause and the Nature of Syntax in Finnish Sign Language. Open Linguistics 31. 65–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2017. Composite utterances in a signed language: Topic constructions and perspective-taking in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3). 511–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry, Barbara O’Dea & Barbara Shaffer. 2001. The construal of events: passives in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 1(3). 281–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 1989. Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Sydney: University of Sydney doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
. 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(1). 29–62.Google Scholar
. 1996. Function and medium in the forms of linguistic expression found in a sign language. In W. H. Edmondson & R. B. Wilbur (eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics, 57–94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2008. The Auslan Archive and Corpus. In D. Nathan (ed.), The Endangered Languages Archive – [URL], London: Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Documentation Project, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
. 2010. From archive to corpus: transcription and annotation in the creation of signed language corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1). 104–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Formational and functional characteristics of pointing signs in a corpus of Auslan (Australian sign language): are the data sufficient to posit a grammatical class of ‘pronouns’ in Auslan? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(1). 109–59.Google Scholar
. 2017. The Auslan Corpus Annotation Guidelines, downloadable from [URL] [Last updated, November 2017].
. 2018. The role of headshake in negation in Auslan (Australian Sign Language): implications for signed language typology. Linguistic Typology 22(2). 185–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri. 2010. Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. In B. Garcia & M. Derycke (eds.), Sourds et langue des signs: Normes et variation. Langage et société, 5–15. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Adam Schembri & Lorraine Leeson. 2007. “Real data are messy”: Considering cross-linguistic analysis of constituent ordering in Auslan, VGT, and ISL. In P. Perniss, R. Pfau & M. Steinbach (eds.), Visible Variation: Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure, 163–205. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1985. Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume II: Complex Constructions, 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2014. Semiotic diversity in utterance production and the concept of ‘language’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B, 369 (1651): 20139203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2011. Doubling in RSL and NGT: towards a unified explanation. Workshop “Information Structure: Empirical Perspectives on Theory”, Potsdam, December 2011.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2005. The semiotic stance. Semiotica 157(1–4). 233–304.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization, and grammar. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 1–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2005. Construction Grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & S. Peña Cervel (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics & interdisciplinary interaction, 101–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008a. Cognitive grammar: a basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b. Metaphoric gesture and cognitive linguistics. In A. Cienki & C. Müller (eds.), Metaphor and gesture, 249–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2006. On Grammatical Relations as Constraints on Referent Identification. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyam (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations: Festschrift for Masayoshi Shibatani (Typological Studies in Language), 139–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. & Dory Poa. 2006. On Describing Word Order. In F. Ameka, A. Dench & N. Evans (eds.), Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, 269–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leeson, Lorraine & J. I. Saeed. 2012. Word Order. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook, 245–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
2000. Indicating verbs and pronouns: Pointing away from agreement. In K. Emmorey & H. Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 303–20. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Massone, Maria Ignacia & Monica Curiel. 2004. Sign order in Argentine Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5(1). 63–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2010. Verb agreement in sign language morphology. In D. Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 173–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verb Agreement. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, Rachel, Adam Schembri, David McKee & Trevor Johnston. 2011. Variable “subject” expression in Australian Sign Language and New Zealand Sign Language. Language Variation and Change 23(1). 1375–398.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkabasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz Ben-Basat, Carol A. Padden & Wendy Sandler. 2017. The effect of being human and the basis of grammatical word order: Insights from novel communication systems and young sign languages. Cognition 1581. 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, Marie & Louis Desouvrey. 1994. Word Order in Sentences with Directional Verbs in Quebec Sign Language. In I. Ahlgren, B. Bergman & M. Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure: Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, vol. 11, 149–58. Durham: International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Rachel Sutton-Spence. 2014. Order of the major constituents in sign languages: implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology 51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Anne Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Ben Bahan & Robert Lee. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oomen, Marloes & Roland Pfau. 2017. Signing NOT (or not): A typological perspective on standard negation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Linguistic Typology 21(1). 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. The Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Parmentier, Richard. 1994. Sign in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin. 1997. WH-Movement and the Position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 731. 18–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinsonneault, Dominique. 1994. Verb echoes in LSQ. In M. Brennan & G. Turner (eds.), Word order issues in sign language: Working papers (presented at a workshop held in Durham 18–22 September 1991), 113–31. Durham: ISLA.Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna. 2019. Towards understanding nonmanuality: a semiotic treatment of signers’ head movements. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 4(1), 391. 31–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, David & Sarika Mehta. 2010. Register variation in mimetic gestural complements to signed language. Journal of Pragmatics 42(3). 557–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Quandros, Ronice Muller & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2010. Clause Structure. In D. Brentari (ed.), Sign Languages, 225–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Miako. 2013. Form, Meaning, and Focus in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., K. Cormier & J. Fenlon. 2018. Indicating verbs as typologically unique constructions: Reconsidering verb ‘agreement’ in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1), 891. 81–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schembri, Adam, Kearsy Cormier, Jordan Fenlon & Trevor Johnston. 2018. Sociolinguistic Typology and Sign Languages. Frontiers in Psychology 91. 200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taub, Sarah. 2001. Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee & P. J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 27–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valli, Clayton, Ceil Lucas & Kirstin J. Mulrooney. 2005. Linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. & Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, M., Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn. 2007. Simultaneity in signed languages: form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volterra, Virginia, A. Laudanna, Serena Corazza, E. Radutsky & F. Natale. 1984. Italian Sign Language: the order of elements in the declarative sentence. In F. Loncke, P. Boyes-Braem & Y. Lebrun (eds.), Recent Research on European Sign Languages, 19–48. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1994. Foregrounding structures in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 221. 647–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Corrine Occhino. 2016. Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 27(3). 371–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, A. Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. Proceedings of LREC 2006, Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 1556–59. Paris: ELAR.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Hand, head, and face: Negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology 81. 1–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2006. Sign Language Typology 1: Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth & Alexander Bergs. 2017. Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 31(s1 (Jun 2017). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Levshina, Natalia, Savithry Namboodiripad, Marc Allassonnière-Tang, Mathew Kramer, Luigi Talamo, Annemarie Verkerk, Sasha Wilmoth, Gabriela Garrido Rodriguez, Timothy Michael Gupton, Evan Kidd, Zoey Liu, Chiara Naccarato, Rachel Nordlinger, Anastasia Panova & Natalia Stoynova
2023. Why we need a gradient approach to word order. Linguistics 61:4 ► pp. 825 ff. DOI logo
Beukeleers, Inez & Myriam Vermeerbergen
2022. Show Me What You’ve B/Seen: A Brief History of Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Hou, Lynn
2022. A Usage-Based Proposal for Argument Structure of Directional Verbs in American Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Hou, Lynn
2022. LOOKing for multi-word expressions in American Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 33:2 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Motamedi, Yasamin, Kenny Smith, Marieke Schouwstra, Jennifer Culbertson & Simon Kirby
2021. The emergence of systematic argument distinctions in artificial sign languages. Journal of Language Evolution 6:2 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Raičević Bajić, Dragana, Myriam Vermeerbergen, Adam Schembri & Mieke Van Herreweghe
2021. Constituent order in Serbian Sign Language declarative clauses. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 6:1 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Bibliography. Journal of Sociolinguistics 26:1 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 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.