Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Theoretical Linguistics

An Open Peer Review Journal

Editor-in-Chief: Krifka, Manfred

Ed. by Gärtner, Hans-Martin

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 2.343

CiteScore 2017: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.457
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.318

Online
ISSN
1613-4060
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 44, Issue 3-4

Issues

Visible Meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics

Philippe Schlenker
  • Corresponding author
  • Département d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Institut Jean-Nicod (ENS - EHESS - CNRS), Paris, France
  • PSL Research University, Paris, France
  • New York University, New York, NY, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-11-03 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0012

Abstract

While it is now accepted that sign languages should inform and constrain theories of ‘Universal Grammar’, their role in ‘Universal Semantics’ has been under-studied. We argue that they have a crucial role to play in the foundations of semantics, for two reasons. First, in some cases sign languages provide overt evidence on crucial aspects of the Logical Form of sentences, ones that are only inferred indirectly in spoken language. For instance, sign language ‘loci’ are positions in signing space that can arguably realize logical variables, and the fact that they are overt makes it possible to revisit foundational debates about the syntactic reality of variables, about mechanisms of temporal and modal anaphora, and about the existence of dynamic binding. Another example pertains to mechanisms of ‘context shift’, which were postulated on the basis of indirect evidence in spoken language, but which are arguably overt in sign language. Second, along one dimension sign languages are strictly more expressive than spoken languages because iconic phenomena can be found at their logical core. This applies to loci themselves, which may simultaneously function as logical variables and as schematic pictures of what they denote (context shift comes with some iconic requirements as well). As a result, the semantic system of spoken languages can in some respects be seen as a simplified version of the richer semantics found in sign languages. Two conclusions could be drawn from this observation. One is that the full extent of Universal Semantics can only be studied in sign languages. An alternative possibility is that spoken languages have comparable expressive mechanisms, but only when co-speech gestures are taken into account (as recently argued by Goldin-Meadow and Brentari). Either way, sign languages have a crucial role to play in investigations of the foundations of semantics.

Keywords: sign language semantics; logical visibility; iconicity; Universal Semantics

References

  • Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. PhD dissertation. Santa Cruz: University of California.Google Scholar

  • Anand, Pranav & Andrew Nevins. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In R. Young (ed.), SALT XIV 20-37, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar

  • Bahan, B., J. Kegl, D. MacLaughlin & C. Neidle. 1995. Convergent evidence for the structure of determiner phrases in American Sign Language. In L. Gabriele, D. Hardison & R. Westmoreland (eds.), FLSM VI, Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, vol. 2. 1–12. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.Google Scholar

  • Bhatt, Rajesh & Roumyana Pancheva. 2006. Conditionals. In M. Everaert & H. Van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1. 638–687. Boston and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Bittner, Maria. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XI, 36–55. Ithaca: CLC.Google Scholar

  • Brentari, Diane & Marie Coppola. 2013. What sign language creation teaches us about language. WIREs Cogn Sci 4. 201–211. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brody, Michael & Anna Szabolcsi. 2003. Overt scope in Hungarian. Syntax 6.1. 19–51.Google Scholar

  • Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistics 24. 945–975.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H & Richard G. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as Demonstrations. Language 66. 764–805.Google Scholar

  • Clark, N, M Perlman & M Johansson Falck. 2013. Iconic pitch expresses vertical space. In B Dancygier, M Borkent & J Hinnell (eds.), Language and the creative mind, 393–410. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Cogill-Koez, D. 2000. Signed language classifier predicates: Linguistic structures or schematic visual representation?. Sign Language and Linguistics 3(2). 153–207.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and Syntactic Theory. 21. Synthese Language Library. D. Reidel: Dordrecht.Google Scholar

  • Cresswell, Max J. 1990. Entities and indices. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. vol. 41. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Cuxac, Christian. 1999. French Sign Language: Proposition of a Structural Explanation by Iconicity. In A. Braort, et al. (ed.), Gesture-based Communication in Human-Computer Interaction, 165–184. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Cuxac, Christian & Marie-Anne Sallandre. 2007. Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. In E. Pizzuto, P. Pietrandrea & R. Simone (eds.), Verbal and signed languages: Comparing structures, constructs and methodologies, 13–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Davidson, Kathryn. 2015. Quotation, Demonstration, and Iconicity. Linguistics & Philosophy 38. 477–520.Google Scholar

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Shifty asymmetries: Universals and variation in shifty indexicality. Manuscript, Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar

  • Dekker, Paul. 2004. Cases, adverbs, situations and events. In H. Kamp & B. Partee (eds.), Context dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Delaporte, Yves. 2007. Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue des signes française: Origine et évolution de 1200 signes. Les Essarts-le-Roi, France: Éditions du Fox.Google Scholar

  • Delaporte, Yves & Emily Shaw. 2009. Gesture and Signs through History. Gesture 9(1). 35–60.Google Scholar

  • Diane, Lillo-Martin. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 155–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2014. The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Brill.Google Scholar

  • Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, K. & M. Herzig. 2003. Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In K. Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in signed languages, 222–246. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, cognition, and the brain: Insights from sign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen. 2014. Iconicity as structure mapping. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 369. 1651. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen & Brenda Falgier. 2004. Conceptual locations and pronominal reference in american sign language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33(4). 321–331.Google Scholar

  • Emmorey, Karen & Asli Ozyurek. 2014. Language in our hands: Neural underpinnings of sign language and co-speech gesture. In M. S. Gazzaniga, & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences, 5th edn., 657–666. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2). 337–362.Google Scholar

  • Finer, Daniel. 1985. The syntax of switch-reference. Linguistic Inquiry 16(1). 35–55.Google Scholar

  • Geach, Peter. 1962. Reference and generality. An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Giorgolo, Gianluca. 2010. Space and time in our hands. Utrecht: Uil-OTS, Universiteit.Google Scholar

  • Goldin-Meadow, Susan & Diane Brentari. 2017. Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Greenberg, Gabriel. 2013. Beyond resemblance. Philosophical Review 122(2). 2013.Google Scholar

  • Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39–100.Google Scholar

  • Halle, Morris. 1978. Knowledge unlearned and untaught: What speakers know about the sounds of their language. In Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan & George Miller (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. Dissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 137–177.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 1991. ‘The first person’, Class handouts. MIT.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Bejar (eds.), Phi-theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Herrmann, Annika & Markus Steinbach. 2012. Quotation in sign languages – A visible context shift. In I. Van Alphen & I. Buchstaller (eds.), Quotatives: Cross-linguistic and cross disciplinary perspectives, 203–228. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hockett, Charles F. 1966. What Algonquian is really like. IJAL 31(1). 59–73. JSTOR 1263449.Google Scholar

  • Hübl, Annika & Markus Steinbach. 2012. Quotation across modalities: Shifting contexts in sign and spoken languages. Talk delivered at the workshop Quotation: Perspectives from philosophy and linguistics, Ruhr-University Bochum.Google Scholar

  • Iatridou, Sabine. 1994. On the contribution of conditional Then. Natural Language Semantics 2. 171–199.Google Scholar

  • Irit., Meir, Wendy Sandler, Carol Padden & Mark Aronoff. 2010. Emerging sign languages. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of deaf studies, language, and education, Vol. 2, 267–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Izvorski, Roumyana. 1996. The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. In K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 26, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

  • Jacobson, Pauline. 1999. Towards a variable free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 117–184.Google Scholar

  • Jacobson, Pauline. 2012. Direct compositionality and ‘uninterpretability’: The case of (sometimes) ‘uninterpretable’ features on pronouns. Journal of Semantics 29. 305–343.Google Scholar

  • Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen & M. J. B. Stokhof (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kegl, Judy. 2004. ASL syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Sign Language & Linguistics 7(2). 173–206. Reprint of an MIT manuscript written in 1977.Google Scholar

  • Kiss, Katalin É. 1991. Logical structure in linguistic structure. In May Huang (ed.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, 387–426. Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Koulidobrova, Elena. 2011. SELF: Intensifier and ‘long distance’ effects in American Sign Language (ASL). Manuscript, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187–237.Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, Jeremy: 2015a Iconicity in the grammar: Pluractionality in (French) Sign Language. Talk, LSA 89.Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, Jeremy: 2015b, Cross-categorical singular and plural reference in sign language. Doctoral dissertation. New York University.Google Scholar

  • Kuhn, Jeremy. 2016. ASL loci: Variables or features? Journal of Semantics. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kuhn, Jeremy & Valentina Aristodemo. 2017. Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(6).Google Scholar

  • Lascarides, Alex & Matthew Stone. 2009. A formal semantic analysis of gesture. Journal of Semantics 26(4). 393–449.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, David K. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the null argument parameters. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

  • Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2012. Utterance reports and constructed action. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach & B. Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 365–387. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • 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, Volume 1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Macken, E., J. Perry & C. Haas. 1993. Richly grounding symbols in ASL. Sign Language Studies 81(1). 375–394.Google Scholar

  • MacSweeney, M, CM Capek, R Campbell & B Woll. 2008. The signing brain: The neurobiology of sign language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12. 432–440.Google Scholar

  • Maier, Emar. 2014a. Mixed Quotation. Survey article written for the Blackwell Companion to Semantics. Manuscript, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

  • Maier, Emar. 2014b. Mixed quotation: The grammar of apparently transparent opacity. Semantics & Pragmatics 7(7). 1–67.Google Scholar

  • Meier, Richard. 2012. Language and modality. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Handbook of sign language linguistics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Meir, Irit. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4). 865–896. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 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: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Nouwen, Rick: 2003. Plural pronominal anaphora in context. Number 84 in Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics Dissertations. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

  • Okrent, Arika. 2002. A modality-free notion of gesture and how it can help us with the morpheme vs. gesture question in sign language linguistics, or at least give us some criteria to work with. In R.P. Meier, D.G. Quinto-Pozos & K.A. Cormier (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 175–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Padden, Carol A.: 1986, Verbs and role-shifting in American Sign Language. In Carol Padden (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium on Sign Language Research and Teaching, Silver Spring, MD: National Association of the Deaf.Google Scholar

  • Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70. 601–609.Google Scholar

  • Perlman, M. & A. Cain. 2014. Iconicity in vocalizations, comparisons with gesture, and implications for the evolution of language. Gesture 14,. 320–350.Google Scholar

  • Perlman, M., R. Dale & G. Lupyan. 2015. Iconicity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science 2. 150152.Google Scholar

  • Quer, Josep. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In E. Georgala and J. Howell (eds.), Proceedings of Semantic and Linguistic Theory (=SALT) XV, 152–168. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

  • Quer, Josep: 2013, Attitude ascriptions in sign languages and role shift. In Leah C Geer (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the Texas Linguistics Society, 12–28. Austin: Texas Linguistics Forum.Google Scholar

  • Quine, Williard V. 1960. Variables explained away. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104(3). 343–347.Google Scholar

  • Rawski, Jonathan: 2018, The Logical Complexity of Phonology Across Speech and Sign, Manuscript, SUNY.Google Scholar

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Point of view in language—The use of parentheticals. In G. Rauch (ed.), Essays on deixis, 169–194. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect. (Explorations in Semantics 2). Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-Categorical approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics & Philosophy 26. 29–120.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2004a. Conditionals as definite descriptions (a referential analysis). Research on Language and Computation 2. 417–462.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2004b. Context of thought and context of utterance. Mind & Language 19/3. 279–304.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2011a. Iconic agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 223–234.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2011b. Donkey anaphora: the view from Sign Language (ASL and LSF). Linguistics and Philosophy 34(4). 341–395.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2011c. Quantifiers and variables: Insights from Sign Language (ASL and LSF). In B.H. Partee, M. Glanzberg & J. Skilters (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics: Discourse, context, and models, The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Vol. 6, 2011. New Prairie Press, Manhattan, US.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2011d. Indexicality and De Se Reports. In Semantics, edited by von Heusinger, Maienborn and Portner, vol. 2, Article 61, 1561–1604. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2013a. Temporal and modal anaphora in Sign Language (ASL). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1). 207–234.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe: 2013b. Anaphora: Insights from Sign Language (Summary). In S. R. Anderson, J. Moeschler & F. Reboul (eds.), L’Interface langage-cognition The Language-cognition Interface. Actes du 19e Congrès International des Linguistes, Genève, 22–27 juillet 2013. Librairie Droz, Genève, Switzerland.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2014. Iconic features. Natural Language Semantics 22(4). 299–356.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2015a. Gradient and iconic features in ASL (squib). Snippets (29). doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2015b. Gestural presuppositions (squib). Snippets (30). doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. 2016. Featural variables. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. to appear, a. Super Monsters – Part I. To appear in Semantics & Pragmatics.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. to appear, b. Super Monsters – Part II. To appear in Semantics & Pragmatics.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. to appear, c. Locative Shift. To appear in Glossa.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe. to appear, d. Iconic Pragmatics. To appear in Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar

  • Schlenker, Philippe, Jonathan Lamberton & Mirko Santoro. 2013. Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2). 91–149.Google Scholar

  • Sharvit, Yael. 2008. The puzzle of free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 31. 353–395.Google Scholar

  • Shaw, Emily & Yves Delaporte. 2010. New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 11(2). 158–204. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stechow, Arnim von. 2004. Binding by verbs: Tense, person and mood under attitudes. In Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds.), The syntax and semantics of the left periphery, 431–488. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stone, M. 1997. The anaphoric parallel between modality and tense. IRCS Report 97 – 06. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

  • Strickland, B., C. Geraci, E. Chemla, P. Schlenker, M. Kelepir & R. 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 112(19). 5968–5973.Google Scholar

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 2001. The syntax of scope. In Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds.), Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 607–634. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society 39. 354–368.Google Scholar

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?. In J. Quer (ed.), Signs of the Time, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar

  • Wilbur, Ronnie B & Evie Malaia. 2008. Event visibility hypothesis: Motion capture evidence for overt marking of telicity in ASL. Chicago, IL: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

  • Winston, E. 1995. Spatial mapping in comparative discourse frames. In K. Emmorey & J. S. Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 87–114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

  • Xu, Jiang, Patrick J. Gannon, Karen, Emmorey, Jason F Smith & Allen R. Braun. 2009. Symbolic gestures and spoken language are processed by a common neural system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 106(49). 20664–20669. doi:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zucchi, Sandro. 2009. Along the time line: Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics 17. 99–139.Google Scholar

  • Zucchi, Sandro: 2011. Event descriptions and classifier predicates in Sign Languages. Presentation given at FEAST in Venice. June 21, 2011.Google Scholar

  • Zucchi, Sandro. 2012. Formal semantics of sign languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(11). 719–734.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-11-03

Published in Print: 2018-11-27


Consultants: This research summarizes research that appeared in various articles, which owe a lot to the work of the following consultants: ASL: Jonathan LambertonLSF: Yann Cantin, Ludovic DucasseTheir contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

Pictures: Pictures that are not cited from published work are stills from videos cited in the text; they are used with the consultants’ explicit consent, which is gratefully acknowledged.

Grant acknowledgments: The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement N°324115–FRONTSEM (PI: Schlenker). Research was conducted at Institut d’Etudes Cognitives, Ecole Normale Supérieure - PSL Research University. Institut d’Etudes Cognitives is supported by grants ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC et ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL*.

Prior work: This paper explicitly borrows from earlier publications on sign language semantics (references are added at the beginning of the relevant sections). While the data and formalisms are mostly not new, the general perspective is.


Citation Information: Theoretical Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 3-4, Pages 123–208, ISSN (Online) 1613-4060, ISSN (Print) 0301-4428, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2018-0012.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in