Article published in:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (2016) ► pp. 37–81

Taking meaning in hand

Iconic motivations in two-handed signs

| Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, USA
| Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
| Sign Language Research Laboratory, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Traditionally in sign language research, the issue of whether a lexical sign is articulated with one hand or two has been treated as a strictly phonological matter. We argue that accounting for two-handed signs also requires considering meaning as a motivating factor. We report results from a Swadesh list comparison, an analysis of semantic patterns among two-handed signs, and a picture-naming task. Comparing four unrelated languages, we demonstrate that the two hands are recruited to encode various relationship types in sign language lexicons. We develop the general principle that inherently “plural” concepts are straightforwardly mapped onto our paired human hands, resulting in systematic use of the two hands across sign languages. In our analysis, “plurality” subsumes four primary relationship types — interaction, location, dimension, and composition — and we predict that signs with meanings that encompass these relationships — such as ‘meet’, ‘empty’, ‘large’, or ‘machine’ — will preferentially be two-handed in any sign language.
Keywords: lexical patterns, iconicity, Swedish Sign Language (SSL), Israeli Sign Language (ISL), Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), two-handed signs, American Sign Language (ASL)
Published online: 15 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.19.1.02lep
References
Acquaviva, Paolo
2008 Lexical plurals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ahlgren, Inger & Brita Bergman
2006 Det svenska teckenspråket. Teckenspråk och teckenspråkiga: Kunskaps- och forskningsöversikt (SOU 2006:291), 11–70. Statens offentliga utredningar.Google Scholar
Al-Fityani, Kinda & Carol Padden
2010 Sign languages in the Arab world. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 433–450. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
2007 In the beginning was the word. Language 83(4). 803–830. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Wendy Sandler
2008 The roots of linguistic organization in a new language. Interaction Studies 9(1). 133–153. Crossref.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 811. 301–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin
1978 Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K
2004 The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80(2). 290–311. Crossref.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita
1979 Signed Swedish. Stockholm: Liber.Google Scholar
1982a Teckenspråkstranskription (Forskning om teckenspråk X). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
1982b Sign typology (Forskning om teckenspråk XI). Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
1983 Verbs and adjectives: Morphological processes in Swedish Sign Language. In Jim Kyle & Bencie Woll (eds.), Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language, 3–9. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
2010 Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, 74–94. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Brita & Johanna Mesch
2004 ECHO data set for Swedish Sign Language (SSL). Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Björkstrand, Thomas
2016 Swedish Sign Language dictionary online. Stockholm: Sign Language Section, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. teckensprakslexikon.su.se.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P., Farrell Ackerman & Robert Malouf
2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In Heidi Harley & Daniel Siddiqi (eds.) Morphological metatheory 271 302 Amsterdam John Benjamins
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary
1990 Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane
1998 A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane & John A. Goldsmith
1993 Secondary licensing and the nondominant hand in ASL phonology. In Geoffrey R. Coulter (ed.), Current issues in ASL phonology: Phonetics and phonology 31, 19–41. New York, NY & San Francisco, CA: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2004 Historical linguistics, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2000 Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno
2011 The other hand in sign language phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, Vol. 11, 223–240. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Johanna Mesch, Dafydd Waters, Els van der Kooij, Bencie Woll & Brita Bergman
2007 Sharing sign language data online. Experiences from the ECHO project. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(4). 535–562. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold
1893 Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen: Erster Teil. Strassburg: Trübner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark
2012 Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Linguistics and Language Compass 6(10). 654–672. Crossref.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen
2002 Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2003 Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D
1973 Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 91. 469–480.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A
1977 On the other hand: New perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy
1975 Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H
1957 Essays in linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guerra Currie, Anne-Marie P., Richard P. Meier & Keith Walters
2002 A crosslinguistic examination of the lexicons of four signed languages. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, 224–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen
2005 Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7). 342–348. Crossref.Google Scholar
Hellquist, Elof
1922 Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerups förlag.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der
1996 On the other hand. Lingua 981. 121–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor & Adam Schembri
1999 On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2(2). 115–185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, Itamar, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Svetlana Dachkovsky
2014 The emergence of embedded structure: Insights from Kafr Qasem Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 5(525). 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kisch, Shifra
2008 “Deaf discourse”: The social construction of deafness in a Bedouin community. Medical Anthropology 27(3). 283–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Ulrike Zeshan & Connie de Vos (eds.), Sign languages in village communitites: Anthropological and linguistic insights, 87–126. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
1979 The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kooij, Els van der
2002 Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli
2001 The Circum-Baltic languages. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology, vol. 551, 615–750. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nahyun & Erich R. Round
2015 Phonaesthemes in morphological theory. Morphology 25(1). 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, Jim G. & Bencie Woll
(eds.) 1985 Sign language: The study of deaf people and their language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1990 Concept, image, symbol. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, Ryan
2015 Motivation in morphology: Lexical patterns in ASL and English. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. (Retrieved from http://​escholarship​.org​/uc​/item​/5c38w519).Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K & Robert E. Johnson
1989 American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 641. 195–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K
2003 Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov
1967 Each word has a history of its own. Glossa 11. 137–149.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit
2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4). 865–896. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Mark Aronoff, Wendy Sandler & Carol Padden
2004 Sign languages and compounding. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Assaf Israel, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2012 The influence of community size on language structure. Linguistic Variation 12(2). 247–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit & Wendy Sandler
2008 A language in space: The story of Israeli Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol A. Padden & Mark Aronoff
(eds.) 2012 Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language: A dictionary. Haifa & San Diego, CA: Sign Language Research Lab, University of Haifa & Center for Research in Language, UCSD.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2010 Emerging sign languages. In Mark Marschark & Patricia E. Spencer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo & Jeff Wu
2003 Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 6(2). 123–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Wendy Sandler
1999 Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42(2-3). 143–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J
1992 Iconicity and Generative Grammar. Language 68(4). 756–796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena
2007 The non-dominant hand in a Swedish Sign Language discourse. In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 163–185. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED
2013 Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford University Press. www​.oed​.com (8 October, 2013).Google Scholar
Özyürek, Aslı, Inge Zwitserlood & Pamela Perniss
2010 Locative expressions in signed languages: A view from Turkish Sign Language (TİD). Linguistics 48(5). 1111–1145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol
1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers
2015 Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science 71. 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic, Sharon Seegers & Tory Sampson
2013 Patterned iconicity in sign language lexicons. Gesture 13(3). 181–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol, Irit Meir, Wendy Sandler & Mark Aronoff
2010 Against all expectations: Encoding subjects and objects in a new language. In Donna Gerdts, John Moore & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Hypothesis A/hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, 383–400. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol & David M. Perlmutter
1987 American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 51. 335–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2010 Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (December 2010). 227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Enoch O. Aboh
2012 On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. In Evan Cohen (ed.), Proceedings of IATL 27 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 65), 83–104. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2006 Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology 10(2). 135–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena & Serena Corazza
1996 Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 98(1). 169–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prillwitz, Siegmund, Regina Leven, Heiko Zienert, Thomas Hanke & Jan Henning
1989 HamNoSys: Version 2.0. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1978 Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
1989 Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in sign language phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Hand in hand: The roles of the nondominant hand in sign language phonology. The Linguistic Review 101. 337–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Markedness in the handshapes of sign language: A componential analysis. In Jeroen van der Weijer & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Leiden in last: Holland Institute of Linguistics phonology papers, 369–399. The Hague: Holland Academie Graphics.Google Scholar
1999a Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Tracy Hall & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999b Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech 42(2-3). 127–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Phonology, phonetics, and the nondominant hand. In Louis Goldstein, D.H. Whalen & Catherine Best (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology: Varieties of phonological competence, 185–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 The phonological organization of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(3). 162–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Irit Meir & Carol Padden
2011 The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(2). 503–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Mark Aronoff, Carol Padden & Irit Meir
2014 Language emergence: Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language. In Nick Enfield, Paul Kockelman & Jack Sidnell (eds.), Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 250–284. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
2006 Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Irit Meir, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff
2005 The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(7). 2661–2665. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1959 Course in general linguistics. Translated, with an introduction and notes by Wade Baskin. (ed.) Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Savir, Hava
1992 Gateway to Israeli Sign Language (First Version). Tel Aviv: The Association of the Deaf in Israel.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe
2011 Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4). 223–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro
2013 Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2). 91–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Daryl A., Rivka Carmi, Khalil Eldebour, Geoffrey M. Duyk, Edwin M. Stone & Val Sheffield
1995 Nonsyndromic autosomal recessive deafness is linked to the DFNB1 locus in a large inbred Bedouin family from Israel. American Journal of Human Genetics 57(4). 965–968.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia
1978 Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 191. 95–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, William C
1960 Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American Deaf (Studies in linguistics: Occasional papers 8). Buffalo, NY: Dept. of Anthropology and Linguistics, University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted
1986 The classifier system in American Sign Language. In Collette G. Craig (ed.), Noun classification and categorization, 181–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
1978 Figure and Ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, Syntax, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. I1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003 The representation of spatial structure in spoken and signed language. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 169–195. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F
2001 Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in ASL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, Richard A. & Marianne Gluszak Brown
2010 The American Sign Language handshape dictionary, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Valli, Clayton & Ceil Lucas
1995 The linguistics of American Sign Language: A resource text for ASL users. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, John Vickrey & Barry A. Crouch
1989 A place of their own: Creating the Deaf community in America. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson & Onno Crasborn
(eds.) 2007 Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wallin, Lars
1996 Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Dept. of Linguistics PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988 Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In Anna Wierzbicka (ed.), The semantics of grammar, 499–560. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 2004, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman
1992 The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 119–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Margaret
2002 Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(4). 625–636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J
2010 On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics, 1–24. Oxford Scholarship Online. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woll, Bencie, Onno Crasborn, Els van der Kooij, Johanna Mesch & Brita Bergman
2010 Extended Swadesh list for signed languages. http://​www​.let​.ru​.nl​/sign​-lang​/echo/.
Woodward, James C
1976 Signs of change: Historical variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 101. 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike & Connie de Vos
(eds.) 2012 Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. Berlin & Nijmegen: Mouton de Gruyter & Ishara Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 29 other publications

ANIBLE, BENJAMIN
2020. Iconicity in American Sign Language–English translation recognition. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 138 ff. Crossref logo
Bradley, Chuck, Evie A. Malaia, Jeffrey Mark Siskind, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Marcus Perlman
2022. Visual form of ASL verb signs predicts non-signer judgment of transitivity. PLOS ONE 17:2 ► pp. e0262098 ff. Crossref logo
Brentari, Diane
2019.  In Sign Language Phonology, Crossref logo
Brentari, Diane, Rabia Ergin, Ann Senghas, Pyeong Whan Cho, Eli Owens & Marie Coppola
2021. Community interactions and phonemic inventories in emerging sign languages. Phonology 38:4 ► pp. 571 ff. Crossref logo
Börstell, Carl & Ryan Lepic
2020. Spatial metaphors in antonym pairs across sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 112 ff. Crossref logo
Börstell, Carl, Ryan Lepic & Gal Belsitzman
2016. Articulatory plurality is a property of lexical plurals in sign language. Lingvisticae Investigationes 39:2 ► pp. 391 ff. Crossref logo
Donazzan, Marta & Luciana Sanchez-Mendes
2020. Decomposing distribution across dimensions: evidence from Libras. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 36:1 Crossref logo
Gu, Shengyun
2019. The feature system of handshapes and phonological processes in Shanghai Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 118 ff. Crossref logo
HWANG, SO-ONE, NOZOMI TOMITA, HOPE MORGAN, RABIA ERGIN, DENIZ İLKBAŞARAN, SHARON SEEGERS, RYAN LEPIC & CAROL PADDEN
2017. Of the body and the hands: patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition 9:4 ► pp. 573 ff. Crossref logo
Krebs, Julia, Ronnie B. Wilbur, Phillip M. Alday & Dietmar Roehm
2019. The Impact of Transitional Movements and Non-Manual Markings on the Disambiguation of Locally Ambiguous Argument Structures in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Language and Speech 62:4 ► pp. 652 ff. Crossref logo
Kuhn, Jeremy
2019. Pluractionality and distributive numerals. Language and Linguistics Compass 13:2 ► pp. e12309 ff. Crossref logo
Lepic, Ryan
2021.  In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 268 ff. Crossref logo
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino
2018.  In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4], ► pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
MAKAROĞLU, Bahtiyar
2020. Türk İşaret Dilinde Anlamsal Bağlantılığın ve Gösterimselliğin Sözlüksel Erişime Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Crossref logo
Meir, Irit & Ariel Cohen
2018. Metaphor in Sign Languages. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo
Napoli, Donna Jo & Stephanie Liapis
2019. Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3:1 ► pp. 31 ff. Crossref logo
Nyst, Victoria
2018. Cross-linguistic variation in space-based distance for size depiction in the lexicons of six sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 21:2 ► pp. 350 ff. Crossref logo
OCCHINO, CORRINE, BENJAMIN ANIBLE & JILL P. MORFORD
2020. The role of iconicity, construal, and proficiency in the online processing of handshape. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 114 ff. Crossref logo
Perlman, Marcus, Hannah Little, Bill Thompson & Robin L. Thompson
2018. Iconicity in Signed and Spoken Vocabulary: A Comparison Between American Sign Language, British Sign Language, English, and Spanish. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo
Pouw, Wim, Mark Dingemanse, Yasamin Motamedi & Aslı Özyürek
2021. A Systematic Investigation of Gesture Kinematics in Evolving Manual Languages in the Lab. Cognitive Science 45:7 Crossref logo
Sandler, Wendy
2017. The Challenge of Sign Language Phonology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 43 ff. Crossref logo
Sandler, Wendy
2018. The Body as Evidence for the Nature of Language. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo
Sandler, Wendy
2021.  In All Things Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 353], ► pp. 57 ff. Crossref logo
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo‐Martin
2017.  In The Handbook of Linguistics, ► pp. 371 ff. Crossref logo
SEVCIKOVA SEHYR, ZED & KAREN EMMOREY
2019. The perceived mapping between form and meaning in American Sign Language depends on linguistic knowledge and task: evidence from iconicity and transparency judgments. Language and Cognition 11:2 ► pp. 208 ff. Crossref logo
Tkachman, Oksana, Gracellia Purnomo & Bryan Gick
2021. Repetition Preferences in Two-Handed Balanced Signs: Vestigial Locomotor Central Pattern Generators Shape Sign Language Phonetics and Phonology. Frontiers in Communication 5 Crossref logo
Östling, Robert, Carl Börstell & Servane Courtaux
2018. Visual Iconicity Across Sign Languages: Large-Scale Automated Video Analysis of Iconic Articulators and Locations. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław
2019. How research on language evolution contributes to linguistics. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 5:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Żywiczyński, Przemysław, Sławomir Wacewicz & Casey Lister
2021. Pantomimic fossils in modern human communication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:1824 Crossref 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.