Article published In:
Special Issue in Memory of Irit Meir
Edited by Diane Lillo-Martin, Wendy Sandler, Marie Coppola and Rose Stamp
[Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1/2] 2020
► pp. 171207
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
2004Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
2016Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39(2). 391–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, Alexis
2008Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 5–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979Word meaning and Montague grammar: the semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTO. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dudis, Paul
2004Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia
2017Central Taurus Sign Language: a unique vantage point into language emergence. Medford: Tufts University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia & Diane Brentari
2017Hand shape preferences for nouns and verbs in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Maria LaMendola & Jennifer Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 222–235. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Irit Meir, Deniz Ilkbaşaran, Carol Padden & Ray Jackendoff
2018The development of argument structure in Central Taurus Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18(4). 612–639. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ergin, Rabia, Ann Senghas, Ray Jackendoff & Lila Gleitman
2018Structural cues for symmetry, asymmetry, and non-symmetry in Central Taurus Sign Language. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG XII).Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2008Reciprocal constructions: towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard Konig & Volker Gast (Eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: theoretical and typological explorations, 33–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1972Subjects, speakers, and roles. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language, 1–24. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, Molly, Susan Goldin-Meadow, Ann Senghas, Marie Coppola & Lila Gleitman
2013Animacy and verb classes in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Gleitman, Lila
2017Takes two to tango. Paper presented at the the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, London, UK.
Gleitman, Lila, Henry Gleitman, Carol Miller & Ruth Ostrin
1996Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition 58(3). 321–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila
1965Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41(2). 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2007Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo & Brenda Laca
2012Verbal plurality and distributivity. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
2007Basic patterns in a typology of reciprocity. Journées d’études sur la pluralité nominale et verbale. Retrieved from [URL]
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani
2006Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44(2). 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo
2017Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 101. 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 11). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchese, Lynell
1986The pronominal system of Godié. In Ursula Wieseman (Ed.), Pronominal systems, 217–256. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit
2010The emergence of argument structure in two new sign languages. In Malka R. Hovav & Edit Doron (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax and event structure, 101–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Carl Börstell, So-One Hwang, Deniz Ilkbasaran, Itamar Kastner, Ryan Lepic, Adi Lifshitz, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
2017The 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
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2013Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3). 531–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2010Emerging sign languages. In Marc Marschark & Patricia Elizabeth Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol. 21, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Gary, Rosalind Herman & Bencie Woll
2002The development of complex verb constructions in British Sign Language. Journal of Child Language 29(3). 655–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
2007Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 147–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., Emma Geniusiene & Zlatka Guentchéva
2007Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, Sanna
2019Agent defocusing in two-participant clauses in Finnish Sign Language. Glossa 4(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oomen, Marloes
2017Iconicity in argument structure: Psych-verbs in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1). 55–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2003Optimal reciprocals in German Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(1). 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016Modality and meaning: Plurality of relations in German Sign Language. Lingua 1701. 69–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
1996Situation perspective: on the relations of thematic roles, discourse categories, and grammatical relations to figure and ground. In Adele Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 401–419. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian
2018Language change across the lifespan. Annual Review of Linguistics 4(1). 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Sotaro Kita & Asli Özyürek
2004Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305(5691). 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Marie Coppola, Elissa Newport & Ted Supalla
1997Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: the emergence of grammatical devices. In Elizabeth Hughes, Mary Hughes & Annabel Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000Towards a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos & Itamar Gati
2004Studies of similarity. In Eldar Shafir (Ed.), Preference, belief, and similarity. Selected writings of Amos Tversky, 75–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike & Sibaji Panda
2011Reciprocal constructions in Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. In Nicholas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen Levinson & Asifa Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology, 91–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar