Commentary published In:
Sign Language & LinguisticsVol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.270–278
Papers from the Sign Linguistics Underground
Commentary on Bos (1998)
References (29)
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb
constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20(4). 513–553.
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 221. 743–810. 
Bos, Heleen F. 1998. An analysis of main verb and auxiliary agreement in SLN within
the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990). Paper presented at the
Sixth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign
Language Research, Gallaudet University, Washington D.C., 12–15 November 1998 [Published 2017 in Sign Language & Linguistics,
this volume].
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2013. The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of
body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117(7). 1258–1284.
Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology
interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4). 1033–1088.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Julia Krebs, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm. 2017. Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language
(ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1). 27–54.
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic
theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol.1:
Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2012. Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Meir, Irit. 1995. Explaining backwards verbs in ISL: Syntactic-semantic
interaction. In Heleen Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth
European Congress on Sign Language Research, 105–119. Hamburg: Signum Press.
. 1998a. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.
. 1998b. Syntactic-semantic interaction in Israeli Sign Language verbs:
The case of backwards verbs. Sign Language & Linguistics 11. 3–38.
. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450.
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and
hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL
agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 371(3–4), 173–187.
Padden, Carol A. 1983[1988]. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. [Published 1988 in Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, New York: Garland Publishing].
Quadros, Ronice M. de & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2010. Clause structure. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 225–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau. 2007. Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign
languages. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language
structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling
by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 619–666.
Quadros, Ronice M. de & Josep Quer. 2008. Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and
verb classes in sign languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unravelling the past, present and future.
Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign
Language Research Conference, Florianópolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: [URL]].
Steinbach, Markus. 2011. What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign
language agreement? Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 209–221.
Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea. 2015. A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in
sign language. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 409–448.
Wilbur, Ronnie. B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why
sign languages look so similar. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Gökgöz, Kadir & Hande Sevgi
2020. Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 316 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.