Cover not available
Review published In:
Identifying sentences in signed languages
Edited by Onno A. Crasborn
[Sign Language & Linguistics 10:2] 2007
► pp. 201–212
Book review

On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language

Reviewed by
 | University of Milano-Bicocca
Published online: 1 October 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.10.2.08bra
References (16)
Selected references
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, Andre Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds). 2000. The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basilico, David. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 721, 498–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati. In press. Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. To appear in A. Liptak (ed.), Correlatives: theory and typology (North Holland Linguistic series 681). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Three theories of relative clauses. The syntax and semantics of nominal modification. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Sandro Zucchi. 2004. Why is SpecCP on the right in sign languages? Paper presented at GLOW 2004, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 241, 945–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina. 2000. La sintassi della comparazione. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2006. On wh-head-movement. In L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), Wh-movement on the move, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander & Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 61, 125–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin E. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 741, 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Ben Bahan & Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language. Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 337–351. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 81, 147–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

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
MANTOVAN, LARA, CARLO GERACI & ANNA CARDINALETTI
2019. On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Journal of Linguistics 55:4 ► pp. 795 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.