Cover not available
Abstract published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (2019) ► pp.275–281
Dissertation abstracts

Verb agreement in Brazilian Sign Language

Morphophonology, syntax & semantics

| Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Article outline
  • Morphophonology: Co-localization as agreement marker
  • Syntax: The syntactic derivation of agreement
  • Semantics: Event properties and the layering of visual information in the verb structure
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 10 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00036.lou
References (14)
References
Bergman, Brita. 1980. On localization in the Swedish Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren & Brita Bergman (eds.), Papers from the First International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 81–92. Stockholm: Swedish Deaf Association.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Capovilla, Fernando C., Walkiria Duarte Raphael, Janice Temoteo & Antonielle Cantarelli Martins. 2017. Dicionário da Língua de Sinais do Brasil: A Libras em Suas Mãos. São Paulo: Edusp.Google Scholar
Costello, Brendan. 2015. Language and modality: Effects of the use of space in the agreement system of Lengua de Signos Española (Spanish Sign Language). Amsterdam & Vitoria: University of Amsterdam and University of the Basque Country PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard P. Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 95–141.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20(2). 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2011. When agreeing to disagree is not enough: Further arguments for the linguistic status of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 189–196.Google Scholar
Strickland, Brent, Carlo Geraci, Emmanuel Chemla, Philippe Schlenker, Meltem Kelepir & Roland Pfau. 2015. Event representations constrain the structure of language: Sign language as a window into universally accessible linguistic biases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 112(19). 5968–5973. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In Karen Emmorey & Harlan Lane (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 213–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2003. Modality and the structure of language: Sign languages versus signed systems. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, 332–346. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
2010. The semantics-phonology interface. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 355–380. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 221–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2023. Morphology in Sign Languages. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 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.