Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.183220
Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman
2009Universal 20 without the LCA. In José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.), Merging features: computation, interpretation, and acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15(1). 25–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abner, Natasha
2012There once was a verb: the predicative core of possessive and nominalization structures in American Sign Language. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman & Melita Stavrou
2007Noun Phrase in the Generative perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R.
2008Analyzing linguistic data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., Doug J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates
2008Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 591. 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Rusty
2008Linguistic differentiation and Mayan language revitalization in Guatemala. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(3). 275–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertone, Carmela
2007La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). Venice: Ca’ Foscari University PhDl dissertation.Google Scholar
2009The syntax of noun modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 191. 7–28.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara
2007On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Urbino: University of Urbino PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
2013Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 157–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati
2009Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Anikó Lipták (ed.), Correlatives crosslinguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Carlo Geraci
2011L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari. In Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 113–126. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Brunelli, Michele
2011Antisymmetry and sign languages: a comparison between NGT and LIS. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
(eds.) 2011Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi
2006Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24(4). 945–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2). 278–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Rint Sybesma
1999Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 509–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1994On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards universal grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne, 85–110. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2003Greenberg’s Universal 20 and the Semitic DP. In Lars Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Á. Sigursson (eds.), Grammatik in fokus/Grammar in Focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003, vol. 21, 243–251. Lund: Wallin & Dalholm.Google Scholar
2005Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistics Inquiry 361. 315–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010The syntax of adjectives. A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012A partial map of extended functional projection of the NP. Advanced Syntax, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. A.Y. 2011/2012 Class lecture.Google Scholar
Conte, Genny, Mirko Santoro, Carlo Geraci & Anna Cardinaletti
2010Why are you raising your eyebrows? Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 53–56.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Han Sloetjes
2008Enhanced ELAN functionality for sign language corpora. Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), conference proceedings, 39–43.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2010Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word order frequencies. Linguistic Typology 14(2–3). 253–286.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
(eds.) 2004Adjectives: a cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
2007Word order. In Shopen Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 11, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun: an alternative to Cinque. Handout of a paper presented at the University of Pavia in June. [URL] Acc. on 2014/12/12.
Fukui, Naoki
1993Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3). 399–420.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Katia Battaglia, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice & Emiliano Mereghetti
2011The LIS corpus project. A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 528–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Robert Bayley, Chiara Branchini, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice, Emiliano Mereghetti, Fabio Poletti, Mirko Santoro & Sandro Zucchi
2010Building a corpus for Italian Sign Language: Methodological issues and some preliminary results. Proceedings of Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 98–101.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Robert Bayley, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
2015Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of Wh-signs. Linguistics 53(1). 125–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Carlo Cecchetto & Sandro Zucchi
2008Sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Michael Grosvald & Dionne Soares (eds.), Western Conference On Linguistics (WECOL), conference proceedings, 46–58.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Marta Gozzi, Costanza Papagno & Carlo Cecchetto
2008How grammar can cope with limited short-term memory: Simultaneity and seriality in sign languages. Cognition 1061. 780–804. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givon, Thomas
2001Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1963Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R.
1988Advanced Varbrul analysis. In Kathleen Ferrara, Becky Brown, Keith Walters & John Baugh (eds.), Linguistic change and contact, 124–136. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill
2002Aspects of DP word order across creoles. Paper presented at the CUNY/SUNY/NYU, Linguistics Mini-Conference , April 20.
Hawkins, John A.
1983Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2004Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy
2008The case of Signed Languages in the context of pidgin and creole studies. In Silvia Kouwenberg & John Victor Singler (eds.), The handbook of pidgin and creoles studies, 491–511. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kegl, Judy, Ann Senghas & Marie Coppola
1999Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua. In Michael DeGraff, (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 179–237. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William
2001Principles of linguistic change (social factors). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar
1990Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Laudanna, Alessandro & Virginia Volterra
1991Order of words, signs and gestures: A first comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics 121. 135–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, William
1984Foreign and second language learning: language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2000The structure of DPs: Principles, parameters and problems. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), The handbook of syntactic theory, 562–603. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacLaughlin, Dawn
1997The structure of Determiner Phrases: Evidence from American Sign Language. Boston, MA: Boston University, doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Martin, Randi & Cristina Romani
1994Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension: A multiple-components view. Neuropsychology 81. 506–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nardozzi, Giangiacomo
2003The Italian “Economic Miracle”. Rivista di Storia Economica 19(2). 139–180.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee
2000The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol & Joan Nash
2012The noun phrase. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 265–292. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa L.
1999Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: contributions to the study of creolization. In Michel DeGraff (ed.), Language creation and language change: creolization, diachrony, and development, 162–178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T. & Edward Gibson
2013Quantitative standards for absolute linguistic universals. Cognitive Science 38(4). 736–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł, Małgorzata Czajkowska-Kisil, Joanna Łacheta & Anna Kuder
2014The syntax of adjectival modification in Polish Sign Language (PJM). Presentation at Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium (OLINCO). Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Olomouc. June 5.
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2006Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Gladys & Felix Sze
2002Nominal expressions in Hong Kong Sign Language: Does modality make a difference? In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 296–321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tily, Harry J. & T. Florian Jaeger
2011Complementing quantitative typology with behavioral approaches: Evidence for typological universals. Linguistic Typology 15(2). 497–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret & Karen Emmorey
2006Comparing sign language and speech reveals a universal limit on short-term memory capacity. Psychological Science 17(8). 682–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zatini, Franco
2014Storia dei Sordi. [URL] Acc. on 2014/12/20.
Zeshan, Ulrike
(ed.) 2006Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013Sign languages. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL]; accessed on 2016/11/16.
Zeshan, Ulrike & Pamela Perniss
(eds.) 2008Possessive and existential constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning
2007Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 101. 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

2019. On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Journal of Linguistics 55:4  pp. 795 ff. DOI logo
Saral, Burcu & Meltem Kelepir
2020. The universal quantifier ‘all’ in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215],  pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2022. 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.