Book contents
- Sign Language Phonology
- Key Topics in Phonology
- Sign Language Phonology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Modality Effects
- 3 Iconicity
- 4 Interfaces
- 5 The Emergence of Phonology
- 6 Sign Language Phonological Processing
- 7 Sign Language Acquisition
- 8 Sign Language Phonological Variation and Change
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 November 2019
Book contents
- Sign Language Phonology
- Key Topics in Phonology
- Sign Language Phonology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Modality Effects
- 3 Iconicity
- 4 Interfaces
- 5 The Emergence of Phonology
- 6 Sign Language Phonological Processing
- 7 Sign Language Acquisition
- 8 Sign Language Phonological Variation and Change
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sign Language Phonology , pp. 274 - 317Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abner, N., Flaherty, M., Stangl, K., Coppola, M., Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2019). The noun-verb distinction in established and emergent sign systems. Language, 95 (2), 230–267.Google Scholar
Abu-Zhaya, R., Seidl, A., & Cristia, A. (2017). Multimodal infant-directed communication: How caregivers combine tactile and linguistic cues. Journal of Child Language, 44, 1088–1116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, J. S. & Miller, J. L. (2001). Contextual influences on the internal structure of phonetic categories: A distinction between lexical status and speaking rate. Perception & Psychophysics, 63 (5), 798–810.Google Scholar
Allen, T. (1986). A study of the achievement patterns of hearing-impaired students: 1974–1983. In Schildroth, A. N. & Karchmer, M. A. (eds.), Deaf Children in America (pp. 161–206). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.Google Scholar
Andrews, S. (1992). Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Lexical similarity or orthographic redundancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15 (5), 802–814.Google Scholar
Ann, J. (1993). A linguistic investigation of the relationship between physiology and handshape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Ann, J. (2006). Frequency of Occurrence and Ease of Articulation of Sign Language Hand Shapes: The Taiwanese Example. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7 (2), 83–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aparicio, M., Gounot, D., Demont, E., & Metz-Lutz, M. N. (2007). Phonological processing in relation to reading: An fMRI study in deaf readers. Neuroimage, 35, 1303–1316.Google Scholar
Aramburo, A. (1989). Sociolinguistic aspects of the black deaf community. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community (pp. 103–119). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aristodemo, V. (2013). The complexity of handshapes: Perceptual and theoretical perspective. Masters thesis, Università Ca’Foscari Venezia, Venice.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Sandler, W. (2003). Classifier complexes and morphology in two sign languages. In Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifiers in Signed Languages (pp. 53–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Sandler, W. (2005). The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81, 301–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslin, R. N. & Pisoni, D. B. (1980). Effects of early linguistic experience on speech discrimination by infants: A critique of Eilers, Gavin and Wilson (1979). Child Development, 51(1), 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.Google Scholar
Bailey, G. (2002). Real and apparent time. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (pp. 312–322). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Baker, A. E. & Woll, B. (eds.) (2009). Sign Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, C. & Padden, C. (1978). Focusing on the non-manual components of American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research (pp. 27–57). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, S. A., Idsardi, W. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. A. (2005). The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 33, 887–904.Google Scholar
Baker, S. A., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. A. (2006). New insights into old puzzles from infants’ categorical discrimination of soundless phonetic units. Language Learning and Development, 2, 147–162.Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, C. (1983). A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Barakat, R. (1975). Cistercian sign language: A study in non-verbal communication. Cistercian Studies Series, 11. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications.Google Scholar
Barberà Altimira, G. (2012). The meaning of space in Catalan Sign Language (LSC): Reference, specificity and structure in signed discourse. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Bartels, C. (1999). The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Battison, R. (1974). Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5, 5–19.Google Scholar
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press. Reprinted. 2003, Burtonsville, MD: Sign Media, Inc.Google Scholar
Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (2013). When does iconicity in sign language matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261–271.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D., Brozinsky, C., Tomann, A., Mitchell, T., Neville, H., & Liu, G. (2001). Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 8931–8942.Google Scholar
Bayley, R., Lucas, C., & Rose, M. (2000). Variation in American Sign Language: The case of DEAF. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Lucas, C., & Rose, M. (2002). Phonological variation in American Sign Language: The case of 1 handshape. Language Variation and Change, 14, 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E. & Venditti, J. J. (2011). Intonation. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 485–532). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, N. N., Baum, S. R., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty! Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, E. & Brentari, D. (2004). Where did all the arguments go? Argument-changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 743–810.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Bat-El, O., Brentari, D., Dupuis, A., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2016). The double identity of linguistic doubling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 13702–13707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, I., Bat-El, O., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2017). The double identity of doubling: Evidence for the phonology/morphology split. Cognition, 161, 117–128.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2013). Amodal aspects of linguistic design: Evidence from sign language. PLOS ONE, 8, 1–17.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2014). Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 560.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Jun, J., Moreno, M. A., & Smolensky, P. (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 5321–5325.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Marcus, G. F., Shimron, J., & Gafos, A. I. (2002). The scope of linguistic generalizations: Evidence from Hebrew word formation. Cognition, 83, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 104, 591–630.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., Mathur, G., Miranda, K. A., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2010). Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 747–762.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Green, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009). Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10, 89–129.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, M. (2010). Happen can’t hear: An analysis of code-blends in hearing, native signers of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 11, 205–240.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (1993). The nature of constraints on the nondominant hand in ASL. In Coulter, G. (ed.), Phonetics and Phonology Vol. 3 (pp. 43–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bochner, J. H., Christie, K., Hauser, P. C., & Searls, J. M. (2011). When is a difference really different? Learners’ discrimination of linguistic contrasts in American Sign Language. Language Learning, 61, 1302–1327.Google Scholar
Bodomo, A. (2006, April). The structure of ideophones in African and Asian languages: the case of Dagaare and Cantonese. In Selected Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference on African Linguistics: African Languages and Linguistics in Broad Perspectives (pp. 203–213). Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. (2003). The odds of eternal optimization in Optimality Theory. In Eric Holt, D. (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change (pp. 31–65). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvillian, J. D., Orlansky, M. D., & Folven, R. J. (1990). Early sign language acquisition: Implications for theories of language acquisition. In Volterra, V. & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 219–232). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Bonvillian, J. & Siedlecki, T. (1993). Young children’s acquisition of the location aspect of American Sign Language signs: Parental report findings. Journal of Communication Disorders, 29, 13–35.Google Scholar
Bookheimer, S. (2002). Functional MRI of language: New approaches to understanding the cortical organization of semantic processing. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 151–188.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R. G. & Dobkins, K. R. (1999). Left hemisphere dominance for motion processing in deaf signers. Psychological Science, 10, 256–262.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R. G. & Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1573.Google Scholar
Bosworth, R., Wright, C., Bartlett, M., Corina, D., & Dobkins, K. (2003). Characterization of the visual properties of signs in ASL. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research (pp. 265–282). Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Boudreault, P. & Mayberry, R. I. (2006). Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 608–635.Google Scholar
Boutora, L. & Karypidis, C. (2007). Are French Sign Language handshapes perceived categorically? Cognitextes (poster presented at the AFLICO conference 2007).Google Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. (1981). Features of the hand shape in ASL. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, P. (1990a). Einführung in die Gebärdensprache und ihre Erforschung. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, P. (1990b.) Acquisition of handshape in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. In Volterra, V. & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 107–127). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, P. (1999). Rhythmic temporal patterns in the signing of early and late learners of German Swiss Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42, 177–208.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, P. (2001). Functions of the mouthing component in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language (pp. 1–47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brand, R. J., Baldwin, D. A., & Ashburn, L. A. (2002). Evidence for “motionese”: Modifications in mothers” infant‐directed action. Developmental Science, 5, 72–83.Google Scholar
Brand, R. J., Shallcross, W. L., Sabatos, M. G., & Massie, K. P. (2007). Fine-grained analysis of motionese: Eye gaze, object exchanges, and action units in infant-versus adult-directed action. Infancy, 11, 203–214.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. (2005). Conjoining word and image in British Sign Language (BSL): An exploration of metaphorical signs in BSL. Sign Language Studies, 5, 360–382.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1988). Backwards verbs in ASL: Agreement re-opened. In MacLeod, L., Larson, G., & Brentari, D. (eds.), Proceedings from the Chicago Linguistic Society 24,Vol. 2, Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory (pp. 16–27). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1990a). Theoretical foundations in American Sign Language phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1990b). Licensing in ASL handshape change. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 57–68). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1993). Establishing a sonority hierarchy in American Sign Language: The use of simultaneous structure in phonology. Phonology, 10, 281–306.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2002). Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K (eds.), Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory (pp. 35–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2005). The use of morphological templates to specify handshapes in sign languages. Linguistische Berichte, 13, 145–177.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2006). Effects of language modality on word segmentation: An experimental study of phonological factors in a sign language. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D., & Best, C. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VIII (pp. 155–164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2010). Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2011). Sign language phonology: ASL. In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), A Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 615–639). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2016). Sign language phonology. In Gertz, G. & Boudreault, P. (eds.), The SAGE Deaf Studies Encyclopedia. Washington, DC: Sage Publishers.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (2018). Modality and contextual salience in co-sign vs. co-speech gesture. Theoretical linguistics, 44 (3–4), 215–226.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. & Crossley, L. (2002). Prosody on the hands and face: Evidence from American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 5, 105–130.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Cho, P. W., & Senghas, A. (2017). Handshape complexity as a pre-cursor to phonology: Variation, emergence, and acquisition. Language Acquisition 24(4),283–306. doi:10.1080/10489223.2016.1187614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Jung, A. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development, 9 (2), 130–150.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012a). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30, 1–31.Google Scholar
Brentari, D, Falk, J., Giannakidou, A, Herrmann, A., Volk, E., & Steinbach, M. (2018). Production and comprehension of prosodic markers in sign language imperatives. Frontiers in Psychology, Special issue on Visual Language (W. Sandler & C. Padden, eds.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D., Falk, J., & Wolford, G. (2015b). The acquisition of prosody in American Sign Language. Language, 91, e144–e168.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., González, C., Seidl, A., & Wilbur, R. (2011). Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners. Language and Speech, 54, 49–72.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Hill, J., & Amador, B. (2018). Variation in phrasal rhythm in sign languages: Introducing “rhythm ratio”. Sign Language & Linguistics, 21, 41–76.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., & Padden, C. (2001). A language with multiple origins: Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language. In Brentari, D., (ed.), Foreign Vocabulary in Sign Language: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Word Formation (pp. 87–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. & Poizner, H. (1994). A phonological analysis of a deaf Parkinsonian signer. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 69–100.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Poizner, H., & Kegl, J. (1995). Aphasic and Parkinsonian signing: Differences in phonological disruption. Brain and Language, 48, 69–105.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Nadolske, M. A., & Wolford, G. (2012b). Can experience with co-speech gesture influence the prosody of a sign language? Sign language prosodic cues in bimodal bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D., Renzo, A. D., Keane, J., & Volterra, V. (2015a). Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 95–123.Google Scholar
Broca, P. (1861/1960). Remarques sur le siège de la faculté du langage articulé, suivies d’une observation d’aphémie (perte de la parole). Bulletins de la Société Anatomique (Paris), 6, 330–357, 398–407. In Von Bonin, G., (ed.), Some papers on the cerebral cortex. Translated as “Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulate language followed by an observation of aphemia” (pp. 49–72). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Brookshire, G., Lu, J., Nusbaum, H. C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Casasanto, D. (2017). Visual cortex entrains to sign language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 6352–6357.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6, 201–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica, 49, 155–180.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1994). A view of phonology from a cognitive and functional perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 5, 285–305.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Phonology and Language Use (Vol. 94). Cambridge/New York: Camberidge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, R., Martin, P., & White, T. (1992). Forced choice recognition of sign in novice learners of British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics, 13, 185–201.Google Scholar
Cardin, V., Orfanidou, E., Kästner, L., Rönnberg, J., Woll, B., Capek, C. M., & Rudner, M. (2015). Monitoring different phonological parameters of sign language engages the same cortical language network but distinctive perceptual ones. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 20–40.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Gutiérrez-Sigut, E., Baquero, S., & Corina, D. (2008). Lexical processing in Spanish sign language (LSE). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 100–122.Google Scholar
Carrigan, E. & Coppola, M. (2017). Successful communication does not drive language development: Evidence from adult homesign. Cognition, 158, 10–27.Google Scholar
Carstairs McCarthy, A. (2001). ASL “syllables” and language evolution: A response to Uriagereka. Language, 77, 343–349.Google Scholar
Caselli, N. K., & Pyers, J. E. (2017). The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science, 28, 979–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Sehyr, Z. S., Cohen-Goldberg, A. M., & Emmorey, K. (2017). ASL-LEX: A lexical database of American Sign Language. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 784–801.Google Scholar
Chase, C. & Jenner, A. R. (1993). Magnocellular visual deficits affect temporal processing of dyslexics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 682, 326–329.Google Scholar
Cheek, A., Cormier, K., Repp, A., & Meier, R. P. (2001). Prelinguistic gesture predicts mastery and error in the production of early signs. Language, 77, 292–323.Google Scholar
Church, R. B. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23, 43–71.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Beckman, M. (ed.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech (pp. 282–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (2001). Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In Hall, T. A. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory (pp. 71–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, E. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J., (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 245–306). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conlin, K., Mirus, G., Mauk, C., & Meier, R. (2000). The acquisition of first signs: Place, handshape and movement. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 51–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coppola, M., & Brentari, D. (2014). From iconic handshapes to grammatical contrasts: Longitudinal evidence from a child homesigner. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 830.Google Scholar
Corina, D. (1990). Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: Evidence from a visual-gestural language. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Deaton, K. (eds.), Proceedings for the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 26; Vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology (pp. 33–43). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P. (1999). On the nature of left hemisphere specialization for signed language. Brain and Language, 69, 230–240.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P., Jose-Robertson, L. S., Guillemin, A., High, J., & Braun, A. R. (2003). Language lateralization in a bimanual language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 718–730.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P., & Knapp, H. P. (2006). Lexical retrieval in American Sign Language production. Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 8, 213–240.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P., McBurney, S. L., Dodrill, C., Hinshaw, K., Brinkley, J., & Ojemann, G. (1999). Functional roles of Broca’s area and SMG: Evidence from cortical stimulation mapping in a deaf signer. Neuroimage, 10, 570–581.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Schembri, A. C., & Tyrone, M. E. (2008). One hand or two? Nativisation of fingerspelling in ASL and BANZSL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 11, 3–44.Google Scholar
Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D., Sevcikova, Z., & Schembri, A. (2012). Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation processes in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication, 32, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulter, G. (1993). Current Issues in American Sign Language Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. (2012). Phonetics. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 4–20). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cresdee, D., & Johnston, T. (2014). Using corpus-based research to inform the teaching of Auslan as a second language. In McKee, D., Rosen, R., & McKee, R. (eds.), Signed languages as second language: International perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 85–110). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. & van der Kooij, E. (1997). Relative orientation in sign language phonology. In Coerts, J. & Hoop, H. de (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997 (pp. 37–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cristia, A. (2011). Fine-grained variation in caregivers’/s/predicts their infants’/s/category. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129, 3271–3280.Google Scholar
Cristia, A., Seidl, A., Junge, C., Soderstrom, M., & Hagoort, P. (2014). Predicting individual variation in language from infant speech perception measures. Child Development, 85, 1330–1345.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. E., & Rosner, B. S. (1974). Categories and boundaries in speech and music. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 564–570.Google Scholar
Cuxac, C., & Sallandre, M. (2007). Iconicity and arbitrariness in French Sign Language: Highly iconic structures, degenerated iconicity and diagrammatic iconicity. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 36, 13.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, S. (2007). Linguistic vs. paralinguistic intonation in sign language. Presentation at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, S., Healy, C., & Sandler, W. (2013). Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology, 30, 211–252.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. (2015). Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38, 477–520.Google Scholar
Dell, F., & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 7, 105–130.Google Scholar
Demey, E. & van der Kooij, E. (2008) Phonological patterns in a dependency model: Allophonic relations grounded in phonetic and iconic motivation. Lingua, 118, 1109–1138.Google Scholar
Devlin, J. T., Matthews, P. M., & Rushworth, M. F. (2003). Semantic processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex: A combined functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 71–84.Google Scholar
Diehl, R. L., Lotto, A. J., & Holt, L. L. (2004). Speech perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 149–179.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G. (1972). Notes on expressive meaning. Proceedings from the 8th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 440–447). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Schuerman, W., Reinisch, E., Tufvesson, S., & Mitterer, H. (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do: Testing the iconicity of ideophones from five languages. Language, 92, e117–e133.Google Scholar
do Carmo, P., Mineiro, A., Branco, J. C., de Quadros, R. M., & Castro-Caldas, A. (2013). Handshape is the hardest path in Portuguese Sign Language acquisition: Towards a universal modality constraint. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16, 75–90.Google Scholar
Downing, L., Hall, T. A., & Raffelsiefen, R. (2004). Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dronkers, N. F., Redfern, B. B., & Knight, R. T. (2000). The neural architecture of language disorders. In Gazzaniga, M. (ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences (pp. 949–960). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dronkers, N. F., Redfern, B. B., & Ludy, C. A. (1995). Lesion localization in chronic Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 51, 62–65.Google Scholar
Dudis, P. G. (2004). Depiction of events in ASL: Conceptual integration of temporal components. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Dunbar, E. & Dupoux, E. (2016). Geometric constraints on human speech sound inventories. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01061.Google Scholar
Duncan, S. (2005). Gesture in signing: A case study from Taiwan Sign Language. Language and Linguistics, 6, 279–318.Google Scholar
Dye, M. W., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view. PloS one, 4(5), e5640.Google Scholar
Eccarius, P. (2008). A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D. (2007). Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Lingua, 117, 1169–1201.Google Scholar
Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D.. (2008). Contrast differences across lexical substrata: Evidence from the ASL handshape. In Adams, N., Cooper, A., Parrill, F., & Weir, T. (eds.) Proceedings from the 44th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2 (pp. 187–201). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Eccarius, P. & Brentari, D. (2010). A formal analysis of phonological contrast and iconicity in sign language handshapes. Sign Language & Linguistics, 13, 156–181.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D. (1963). The relation between identification and discrimination along speech and non-speech continua. Language and Speech, 6(4), 206–217.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. (1999). Do signers gesture? In Messing, L. & Campbell, R. (eds.) Gesture, Speech, and Sign (pp. 133–159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Action. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Bellugi, U., Friederici, A., & Horn, P. (1995). Effects of age of acquisition on grammatical sensitivity: Evidence from on-line and off-line tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 1–23.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Giezen, M. R., Petrich, J. A., Spurgeon, E., & Farnady, L. O. G. (2017). The relation between working memory and language comprehension in signers and speakers. Acta Psychologica, 177, 69–77.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Grabowski, T., McCullough, S., Damasio, H., Ponto, L., Hichwa, R., & Bellugi, U. (2004). Motor-iconicity of sign language does not alter the neural systems underlying tool and action naming. Brain and Language, 89, 27–37.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K. & Herzig, M. (2003). Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. In Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Signed Languages (pp. 222–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. M., & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and visual-spatial language: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and hearing ASL signers. Cognition, 46, 139–181.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003). Categorical perception in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 21–45.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Mehta, S. & Grabowski, T. (2007). The neural correlates of sign versus word production. NeuroImage, 36, 202–208.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., McCullough, S., & Grabowski, T.J. (2014). How sensory-motor systems impact the neural organization for language: Direct contrasts between spoken and signed language. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00484.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Mehta, S., McCullough, S., & Grabowski, T. J. (2016). The neural circuits recruited for the production of signs and fingerspelled words. Brain and Language, 160, 30–41.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Weisberg, J., McCullough, S., & Petrich, J. A. (2013). Mapping the reading circuitry for skilled deaf readers: An fMRI study of semantic and phonological processing. Brain and Language, 126, 169–180.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Xu, J., & Braun, A. (2011). Neural responses to meaningless pseudosigns: Evidence for sign-based phonetic processing in superior temporal cortex. Brain and Language, 117, 34–38.Google Scholar
Ergin, R. (2017). Central taurus sign language: A unique vantage point into language emergence. Doctoral dissertation, Tufts University.Google Scholar
Ergin, R. & Brentari, B. (2017). Handshape preferences for objects and predicates in Central Taurus Sign Language. In LaMendola, M. & Scott, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 222–235). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Erting, C.J., Prezioso, C., & Hynes, M. G. (1990). The interactional context of mother-infant communication. In Volterra, V., & Erting, C. (eds.), From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 97–106). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, U. & Irurtzun, A. (2015). The emergence of scalar meanings. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 141.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cooperrider, K., Keane, J., Brentari, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2019). Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.499.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cormier, K. & Brentari, D. (2017). The phonology of sign languages. In Hannahs, S.J. & Bosch, A. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 453–475). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., Rentelis, R., Schembri, A., Rowley, K., Adam, R., & Woll, B. (2014a). BSL SignBank: A Lexical Database of British Sign Language (1st ed.). London: Deafness, Cognition and Language Research Centre, University College London.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., & Cormier, K. (2013). Variation in handshape and orientation in British Sign Language: The case of the “1”hand configuration. Language & Communication, 33(1), 69–91.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J., Schembri, A., Rentelis, R., Vinson, D., & Cormier, K. (2014b). Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in British Sign Language: The influence of text type. Lingua, 143, 187–202.Google Scholar
Fiez, J. A. (1997). Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 5, 79–83.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. (1978). Sign language and creoles. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research: Perspectives in Neurolinguistics and Psycholinguistics (pp. 309–331). New York, NY/San Francisco, CA/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. & Gough, B. (1978). Verbs in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 7, 17–48.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E. (1999). Age of learning and second-language speech. In Birdsong, David (ed.), Second Language Acquisition and The Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 101–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Flege, J. E., Yeni-Komshian, G. H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 78–104.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (1996). Evidence for constraints on contrast: The dispersion theory of contrast. UCLA Working Papers in Phonology, 1, 86–106.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (1997). Phonetic optimization: Compromise in speech production. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 5, 72–91.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (2017). Dispersion theory and phonology. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fogel, A. (1981). The ontogeny of gestural communication: The first six months. In Stark, R.E. (ed.), Language Behavior in Infancy and Early Childhood (pp. 17–44). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Fontana, S., Corazza, S., Braem, P. B., & Volterra, V. (2017). Language research and language community change: Italian sign language 1981–2013. Sign Language Studies, 17, 363–398.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., 2004. Speech as a supramodal or amodal phenomenon. In Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (eds.), Handbook of Multisensory Processes (pp. 189–201). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. A. (1976). Phonology of a soundless language: Phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. A. (ed.). (1977). On The Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, N. (1975). Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language, 51, 696–719.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Introduction. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.), Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence (pp. 11–45). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fuks, O. (submitted) Two styles of infant-directed signing in Israeli sign language. Language, Learning & Development.Google Scholar
Geraci, C. (2009). Epenthesis in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 12(1), 3–51.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Battaglia, K., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., Giudice, S., & Mereghetti, E. (2011). The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies, 11, 528–574.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., Bayley, R., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., & Donati, C. (2015). Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The case of wh-signs. Linguistics, 53, 125–151.Google Scholar
Giezen, M. R. & Emmorey, K. (2017). Evidence for a bimodal bilingual disadvantage in letter fluency, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1),42–48.Google Scholar
Giraud, A. L. & Poeppel, D. (2012). Cortical oscillations and speech processing: Emerging computational principles and operations. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 511.Google Scholar
Goffman, L., Gerken, L., & Lucchesi, J. (2007). Relations between segmental and motor variability in prosodically complex nonword sequences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 444–458.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kelepir, M. (2013). The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 16, 1–30.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1989). Priming lexical neighbors of spoken words: Effects of competition and inhibition. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 501–518.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The Resilience of Language: What Gesture Creation in Deaf Children Can Tell Us about How All Children Learn Language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Brentari, D. (2017). Gesture, sign, and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., McNeill, D., & Singleton, J. (1996). Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review, 103, 34.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1983). Gestural communication in deaf children: Noneffect of parental input on language development. Science, 221, 372–374.Google Scholar
Goldinger, S. D., Luce, P. A., Pisoni, D. B., & Marcario, J. K. (1992). Form-based priming in spoken word recognition: The roles of competition and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1211–1238.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Published New York: Garland Press, 1979].Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1992). Tone and accent in Llogoori. In Brentari, D., Larson, G., & MacLeod, L. (eds.), The Joy of Syntax: A Festschrift in Honor of James D. McCawley (pp. 73–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (2001). Probabilistic models of grammar: phonology as information minimization. Phonological Studies, Vol. 5. Tokyo: The Phonological Society of Japan (Kaitakusha).Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (2002). Probabilistic models of grammar: Phonology as information minimization. Phonological Studies, 5, 21–46.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. & Larson, G. (1990). Local modeling and syllabification. In Papers from the 26th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago Linguistics Society, 129–141.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H. & Acenas, L. A. (2004). What is a TOT? Cognate and translation effects on tip-of-the-tongue states in Spanish–English and Tagalog–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 246–269.Google Scholar
Golston, C. & Yang, P. (2001). White Hmong loanword phonology. In Féry, C., Green, A. D., & van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5 (pp. 40–57). Potsdam: University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Gómez, D. M., Berent, I., Benavides-Varela, S., Bion, R. A. H., Cattarossi, L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2014). Language universals at birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5837–5341.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. (2006). Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grabe, E. & Low, E. L. (2002). Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7, Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Grenoble, L., Baglini, R., & Martinović, M. (2015). Verbal gestures in Wolof. In Kramer, R., Zsiga, E. C., & Tlale Boyer, O. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (ACAL 44) (pp. 110–121). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Grigely, J. (1996). Textualterity: Art, Theory, and Textual Criticism. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Groce, N. E. (1985). Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha’s Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. & Lane, H. (1976). How the listener integrates the components of speaking rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 538–543.Google Scholar
Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. (2012a). Perception of long-distance coarticulation: An event-related potential and behavioral study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. (2012b) The perceptibility of long-distance coarticulation in speech and sign: A study of English and American Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics, 15, 73–103.Google Scholar
Grote, K. & Linz, E. (2003). The influence of sign language iconicity on semantic conceptualization. In Müller, W. & Fischer, O. (eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in Language and Literature, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language, 56, 515–540.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 31–38.Google Scholar
Hall, M. & Bavelier, D. (2010). Working memory, deafness and sign language. In Marschark, M. & Spencer, P. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language and Education, Vol. 2. (pp. 458–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, M. L., Ferreira, V. S., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012). Phonological similarity judgments in ASL: Evidence for maturational constraints on phonetic perception in sign. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15, 104–127.Google Scholar
Hanson, V. L. & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Memory & Cognition, 15, 199–207.Google Scholar
Hara, D. (2003). A complexity-based approach to the syllable formation in sign language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. (1987). Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, M., Clibbens, J., Chasin, J., & Tibbitts, R. (1989). The social context of early sign language development. First Language, 9, 81–97.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hayes, B (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. (2015). The marking of information structure in German Sign Language. Lingua, 165, 277–297.Google Scholar
Herrmann, A. & Pendzich, N-K. (2014). Nonmanual gestures in Sign Languages. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J. (eds.), Handbook Body – Language – Communication (pp. 1249–1260). Berlin/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S. (1996). The neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Nature, 381(6584), 699–702.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, U. & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 593–612.Google Scholar
Hillis, A. E., Wang, P., Barker, P., Beauchamp, N., Gordon, B. & Wityk, R., (2000). Magnetic resonance perfusion imaging: A new method for localizing regions of brain dysfunction associated with specific lexical impairments? Aphasiology, 14(5–6), 471–483.Google Scholar
Hillyard, S. A. & Picton, T. W. (1979). Conscious perception and cerebral event-related potentials. In Desmedt, J. E. (ed.), Cognitive Components in Cerebral Event-Related Potentials and Selective Attention. Progress in Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 6. (pp. 1–52). Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
Hirsh, I. J. & Sherrick, C. E. Jr (1961). Perceived order in different sense modalities. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 423.Google Scholar
Hirshorn, E., Dye, W. M., Hauser, P., Supalla, T., & Bavelier, D. (2015). The contribution of phonological knowledge, memory, and language background to reading comprehension in deaf populations. Frontiers in Psychology, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01153.Google Scholar
Hohenberger, A., Happ, D., & Leuninger, H. (2002). Modality-dependent aspects of sign language production: Evidence from slips of the hands and their repairs in German Sign Language. In Meier, R., Quinto, D., & Cormier, K. (eds.), Modality in Language and Linguistic Theory (pp. 112–142). Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, J. (2000). An Introduction to Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holzrichter, A. & Meier, R. P., (2000). Child-directed signing in American Sign Language. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hömke, P., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. (2017). Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 54–70.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. (1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horton, , (2018). Conventionalization of shared homesign systems in Guatemala: Lexical & morpho-phonological dimensions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Horton, L., Goldin-Meadow, S., Coppola, M., Senghas, A., & Brentari, D. (2015). Forging a morphological system out of two dimensions: Agentivity and number. Open Linguistics, 1, 596–613.Google Scholar
Hosemann, J., Altvater-Mackensen, N., Herrman, A., & Mani, N. (2013). Cross-modal language activation. Does processing a sign (L1) also activate its corresponding written translations (L2)? Presented at the 11th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, London.Google Scholar
Humphries, T., Kushalnagar, P., Mathur, G., Napoli, D. J., Padden, C., & Rathmann, C. (2014). Ensuring language acquisition for deaf children: What linguists can do. Language, 90, e31–e52.Google Scholar
Humphries, T., & MacDougall, F. (2000). “Chaining” and other links: Making connections between American Sign Language and English in Two Types of School Settings. Visual Anthropology Review, 15, 84–94.Google Scholar
Hwang, S-O. (2011). Windows into sensory integration and rates in language processing: Insights from signed and spoken languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Hwang, S-O, Tomita, N., Morgan, H., Ergin, R., Ilbasaran, D., Seegers, S., Lepic, R., & Padden, C. (2017). Of the body and the hands: Patterned iconicity for semantic categories. Language and Cognition, 9, 573–602.Google Scholar
Idsardi, W. (1992). The computation of prosody. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (2011). The phonology-morphology interaction. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 68–102). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iskarous, K. & Goldstein, L. (2018). The dynamics of prominence profiles: From local computation to global patterns. In Brentari, D. & Lee, J. (eds.), Shaping Phonology (pp. 153–177). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Israel, A. & Sandler, W. (2011). Phonological category resolution: A study of handshapes in younger and older sign languages. In Channon, R. & van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Formational Units in Sign Languages (pp. 177–202). Berlin: De Gruyter / Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, New York (Published 1989, Garland Press).Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1995a). The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on re-ranking. In Beckman, J, Urbanczyk, S., & Walsh, L. (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics [UMOP] Vol. 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 181–209). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1995b). Japanese phonology. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. (eds.), Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 817–838). Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1996). The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadal, L., & Garrett, M. E (eds.), Language and Space (pp. 1–30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971/1990). Shifters verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II (pp.130–147). The Hague: Mouton. [also in L.R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (eds.) On Language (pp. 386–392). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and their Correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jantunen, T. (2006). The complexity of lexical movements in FinSL. In Suominen, M., Arppe, A., Airola, A., Heinamaki, O., Miestamo, M., Määttä, U., Niemi, J., Pitkaänen, K. K. & Sinnemäki, K. (eds.), A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on His 60th Birthday (pp. 335–344). Turku: The Linguistic Association of Finland (Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics; vol. 19, 2006).Google Scholar
Jantunen, T. (2007). Tavu suomalaisessa viittomakielessä. [The syllable in Finnish Sign Language; with English abstract] Puhe ja kieli, 27, 109–126.Google Scholar
Jantunen, T, & Takkinen, R. (2010). Syllable structure in sign language phonology. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 312–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Japan Institute for Sign Language Studies (ed.). (1997). The Japanese-Japanese Sign Language Dictionary. Tokyo: Federation of the Deaf.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S. & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. & Hume, E. (2003). Phonetic explanation in phonology: Overview of the symposium. In Solé, M.J., Recasens, D., & Romero, J. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 359–361). Barcelona: Casual Productions.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. (1989). Auslan: The sign language of the Australian deaf community. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. (2002). BSL, Auslan and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research: Selected Papers from TISLR 2000 (pp. 47–69). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. & Schembri, A. C. (1999). On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 115–185.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Houston, D. M., & Newsome, M. (1999). The beginnings of word segmentation in English-learning infants. Cognitive Psychology. 39, 159–207.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Rosner, B. S., Cutting, J. E., Foard, C. F., & Smith, L. B. (1977). Categorical perception of nonspeech sounds by 2-month-old infants. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 50–54.Google Scholar
Kantor, R. (1980). The acquisition of classifier handshapes in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 28, 193–200.Google Scholar
Keane, J. (2014). Towards an articulatory model of handshape: What fingerspelling tells us about the phonetics and phonology of handshape in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Keane, J. & Brentari, D. (2016). Fingerspelling: Beyond handshape sequences. In Marschark, M. & Siple, P., (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies in Language: Research, Policy, and Practice (pp. 146–160). New York, NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keane, J., Brentari, D. & Riggle, J. (2015). Segmentation and pinky extension in in ASL fingerspelling. In Raimy, E. & Cairns, C. (eds.), The Segment in Phonology and Phonetics (pp. 103–128). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. (1985). Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. & Iwata, G. (1989). Lenguaje de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin sheds light on the “Creole?” ASL. In Carlson, R., DeLancey, S., Gildea, S., Payne, D., & Saxena, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Meetings of the Pacific Linguistics Conference (pp. 266–294). Eugene, OR: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kelly, A. (1995). Fingerspelling interaction: A set of deaf patterns and her daughter. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, vol 1 (pp. 62–73). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1980). The sign language of the women of Yuendumu: A preliminary report on the structure of Warlpiri sign language. Sign Language Studies, 27, 101–112.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1984). Knowledge of sign language in an Australian aboriginal community. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40, 556–576.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1985). Iconicity in Warlpiri Sign Language. In Bouissac, P., Herzfeld, M., & Posner, R. (eds.), Iconicity: Essay on the Nature of Culture. Tübingen: Stauffenburger Verlag.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1987). Speaking and signing simultaneously in Warlpiri sign language users. Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 6, 25–68.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1988). Parallels and divergences between Warlpiri sign language and spoken Warlpiri: Analyses of signed and spoken discourses. Oceania, 58, 239–254.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Sáfár, A., & Crasborn, O. (2016). Towards a classification of weak hand holds. Open Linguistics, 2, 211–234.Google Scholar
Kiparksy, P. (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 3–91). Seoul: Hanshin Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S., Ingeborg, V. G., & van der Hulst, H. (2014). The non-linguistic status of the symmetry condition in signed languages. Sign Language & Linguistics, 17, 215–238.Google Scholar
Kita, S. & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 16–32.Google Scholar
Kisch, S. (2012). Demarcating generations of signers in the dynamic sociolinguistic landscape of a shared sign-language: The case of the Al-Sayyid Bedouin. In Zeshan, Ulrike & de Vos, Connie(eds.), Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights (pp. 87–125). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, K. R. & Kiefte, M. (2006). Speech perception within a biologically-realistic information-theoretic framework. In Gernsbacher, M. A. & Traxler, M. (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 153–199). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kohlrausch, A., Püschel, D., & Alphei, H. (1992). Temporal resolution and modulation analysis in models of the auditory system. The Auditory Processing of Speech: From Sounds to Words, 10, 85.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. & Swerts, M. (2007). The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 396–414.Google Scholar
Kubus, O., Villwock, A., Morford, J. P., & Rathmann, C. (2015). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics. 6, 831–854.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K. & Miller, J. D. (1975). Speech perception by the chinchilla: Voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science, 190, 69–72.Google Scholar
Kuramada, M. Brown, Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D., & Tanenhaus, M. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition 133, 335–342.Google Scholar
Kusters, A. (2017). Innovation in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change, Language Variation and Change, 19: 205–254.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2014). Simultaneous Structure in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laks, B., Calderone, B., & Celata, C. (2018). French liaison in the light of corpus phonology: From lexical information to patterns of usage variation. In Brentari, D. & Lee, J. (eds.), Shaping Phonology: Essays in Honor of John Goldsmith. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landau, L. & Lifshitz, E. (1987). Fluid Mechanics. In Course of Theoretical Physics, 2nd ed. (pp. 378–382). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lane, H., Boyes-Braem, P., & Bellugi, U. (1976). Preliminaries to a distinctive feature analysis of handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 263–289.Google Scholar
Lane, H., Pillard, R., & French, M. (2000). Origins of the American deaf-world: Assimilating and differentiating societies and their relation to genetic patterning. Sign Language Studies, 1, 17–44.Google Scholar
Lang, G. (2008). Making Wawa: The Genesis of Chinook Jargon. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Launer, P. B. (1982). “A plane” is not “to fly”: Acquiring the distinction between related nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
Lepic, R., Börstell, C., Belsitzman, G., & Sandler, W. (2016). Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19, 37–81.Google Scholar
Lewin, T. (2010). Colleges see 16% increase in study of sign language. The New York Times.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431–461.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358.Google Scholar
Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 80–134.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. (1984) think and believe: Sequentiality in American Sign Language. Language, 60, 372–392.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. (2003). Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 4, 445–513.Google Scholar
Liddell, S., & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 195–277.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. & Metzger, M. (1998). Gesture in sign language discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 657–697.Google Scholar
Lieberth, A. K. & Gamble, M. E. B. (1991). The role of iconicity in sign language learning by hearing adults. Journal of Communication Disorders, 24, 89–99.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Meier, R. P. (2011a). On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 95–141.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. & Meier, R. P. (2011b). Response to commentaries: Gesture, language, and directionality. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 235–246.Google Scholar
Long, J. S. (1918). The Sign Language: A Manual of Signs, Being a Descriptive Vocabulary of Signs Used by the Deaf of the United States and Canada. Gallaudet College. Des Moines, IA: R. Henderson.Google Scholar
Lu, J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Combining categorical and gradient information in sign and spoken communication. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Iconicity in Language and Literature. University of Brighton.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Jones, A., & Morgan, G. (2016). The impact of input quality on early sign development in native and non-native language learners. Journal of Child Language, 43, 537–552.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. (1995). Sociolinguistic variation in ASL: The case of DEAF. Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, 1, 3–25.Google Scholar
Lucas, C. & Bayley, R. (2010). Variation in American Sign Language. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 451–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Rose, M., & Wulf, A. (2002). Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2(4). 407–440.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Valli, C. (2001). Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language: Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, Vol. VII. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Valli, C. (2003). What’s Your Sign for PIZZA? An Introduction to Variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Luckner, J. L., & Handley, C. M. (2008). A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 6–36.Google Scholar
Luttgens, K., Deutsch, H., & Hamilton, N. (1992). Kinesiology: Scientific Basis of Human Motion. 8th edition. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., & Davis, B. L. (1993). Motor explanations of babbling and early speech patterns. In Developmental Neurocognition: Speech and Face Processing in the First Year of Life (pp. 341–352). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Brammer, M. J., Waters, D., & Goswami, U. (2009). Enhanced activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in deaf and dyslexic adults during rhyming. Brain, 132, 1928–1940.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Calvert, G. A., McGuire, P. K., David, A. S., Suckling, J., & Brammer, M. J. (2001). Dispersed activation in the left temporal cortex for speech-reading in congenitally deaf people. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268, 451–457.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Campbell, R., Woll, B., Giampietro, V., David, A., McGuire, P. K., Calvert, G. A., & Brammer, M. J. (2004). Dissociating linguistic and nonlinguistic gestural communication in the brain. Neuroimage 22, 1605–1618.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., & Cardin, V. (2015). What is the function of auditory cortex without auditory input? Brain, 138, 2468–2470.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Goswami, U., & Neville, H. (2013). The neurobiology of rhyme judgment by deaf and hearing adults: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 1037–1048.Google Scholar
MacSweeney, M., Waters, D., Brammer, M. J., Woll, B., & Goswami, U. (2008). Phonological processing in deaf signers and the impact of age of first language acquisition. Neuroimage, 40, 1369–1379.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I., Bhattacharya, T. Smith, E., & Croft, W. (2011). Geographical distribution of phonological complexity. Linguistic Typology, 15, 267–279.Google Scholar
Mak, J. & Tang, G. (2012). Movement types, repetition, and feature organization in Hong Kong Sign Language. In van der Hulst, H. & Channon, R. (eds.), Formational Units in the Analysis of Signs (pp. 315–337). Nijmegan: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Mann, W., Marshall, C. R., Mason, K., & Morgan, G. (2010). The acquisition of sign language: The impact of phonetic complexity on phonology. Language Learning and Development, 6, 60–86.Google Scholar
Marentette, P. F. & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Principles for an emerging phonological system: A case study of early ASL acquisition. In Chamberlain, C., Morford, J., & Mayberry, R. (eds.), Language Acquisition by Eye (pp. 71–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test – Revised Manual. Circle Pines, MI: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Marschark, M. (2009). Raising and Educating a Deaf Child: A Comprehensive Guide to the Choices, Controversies, and Decisions Faced by Parents and Educators. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. & Morgan, G. (2015). From gesture to sign language: Conventionalization of classifier constructions by adult hearing learners of British Sign Language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(1), 61–80.Google Scholar
Martinez del Rio, A. (2018). Distribution of structure within the handshape and movement parameters in ASL: A comparison of complexity based approaches. ms, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Masataka, N. (1992). Motherese in a signed language. Infant Behavior & Development, 15, 453–60.Google Scholar
Mathur, G. & Rathmann, C. (2010a). Verb agreement in sign language morphology. In Brentari, Diane (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 173–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mathur, G. & Rathmann, C. (2010b). Two types of nonconcatenative morphology in signed languages. In Mathur, G. & Napoli, D.J. (eds.), Deaf around the World: The Impact of Language (pp. 54–82). Oxford/New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauk, C. E. & Tyrone, M. E. (2012). Location in ASL: Insights from phonetic variation. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15, 128–146.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. (2007). When timing is everything: Age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 537–549.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R., Del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 164–188.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. & Eichen, E. B. (1991). The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 486–512.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. & Fischer, S. D. (1989). Looking through phonological shape to lexical meaning: The bottleneck of non-native sign language processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 740–754.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. & Lock, E. (2003). Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis. Brain and Language, 87, 369–384.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Development: Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417(6884), 38.Google Scholar
Mayberry, R. I. & Witcher, P. (2005). What Age of Acquisition Effects Reveal about the Nature of Phonological Processing (Tech. Rept. No. 17, 3). San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego, Center for Research in Language.Google Scholar
Maye, J. & Gerken, L. A. (2000a). Distributional cues to phonemic categories. In Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Maye, J., & Gerkin, L. (2000b). Learning phoneme categories without minimal pars. In Howell, S.C., Fish, S.A., & Keith-Lucas, T.(eds.). BUCLD 24 (pp. 522–533). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Maye, J. & Gerken, L. A. (2001). Learning phonemes: How far can the input take us? Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
McCandliss, B. D., Fiez, J. A., Protopapas, A., Conway, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Success and failure in teaching the [r]-[l] contrast to Japanese adults: Tests of a Hebbian model of plasticity and stabilization in spoken language perception. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 89–108.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2001). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory in Phonology. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: optimality in prosodic morphology. ms. Rutgers University Community Repository.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A.. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, J, Urbanczyk, S., & Walsh, L. (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics [UMOP] Vol. 18: Papers in Optimality Theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
McCaskill, C., Lucas, C., Bayley, R., & Hill, J. (2011). The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McClave, E. Z. (2000). Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 855–878.Google Scholar
McCullough, S. & Emmorey, K. (1997). Face processing by deaf ASL signers: Evidence for expertise in distinguishing local features. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 212–222.Google Scholar
McCullough, S. & Emmorey, K. (2009). Categorical perception of affective and linguistic facial expressions. Cognition, 110, 208–221.Google Scholar
McIntire, M. (1977). The acquisition of American Sign Language hand configurations. Sign Language Studies, 16, 247–266.Google Scholar
McIntire, M. L. & Reilly, J. (1996). Looking for frogs in the narrative stream: Global and local relations in maternal narratives. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 6, 65–86.Google Scholar
McKee, D. & Kennedy, G. (2006). The distribution of signs in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 6, 372–390.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McQuarrie, L. & Parrila, R. (2009). Phonological representations in deaf children: Rethinking the “functional equivalence” hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 137–154.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (1998). Spotting (different kinds of) words in (different kinds of) context. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 6, 2791–2794.Google Scholar
Meir, I. (2002). A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20, 413–450.Google Scholar
Meir, I. (2010). Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphoric extension of iconic forms. Language, 86, 865–986.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2007). Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 531–563.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2010). Emerging sign languages. In Marschark, M & Spencer, P. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education, vol 2 (pp. 267–280). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. (1993). A psycholinguistic perspective on phonological segmentation in sign and speech. In Coulter, G. (ed.), Current Issues in ASL Phonology (pp. 169–188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. (2002a). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In Meier, R. P., Cormier, Kearsy, & Quinto-Pozos, David Q. (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. (2002b). The acquisition of verb agreement: Pointing out arguments for the linguistic status of agreement in signed languages. In Morgan, G. & Woll, B. (eds.), Directions in Sign Language Acquisition (pp. 115–141). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Associates.Google Scholar
Meier, R. (2006). The form of early signs: Explaining signing children’s articulatory development. In Marschark, M., Schick, B., & Spencer, P. Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children (pp. 202–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meier, R. (2012). Language and modality. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 574–601). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P., Mauk, C. E., Cheek, A., & Moreland, C. J. (2008). The form of children’s early signs: Iconic or motoric determinants? Language Learning and Development, 4(1), 63–98.Google Scholar
Meier, R. & Newport, E. (1991). Language acquisition by deaf children, American Scientist, 79, 60–70.Google Scholar
Michaels, J. (1923). A Handbook of the Sign Language of the Deaf. Atlanta, GA: Southern Baptist Convention.Google Scholar
Mielke, J. (2005). Modeling Distinctive Feature Emergence. In Alderete, J., Han, C., & Kochetov, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 281–289). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338–352.Google Scholar
Mirus, G. R., Rathmann, C., & Meier, R. P. (2001). Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. In Dively, V. L., Metzger, M., Taub, S., & Baer, A. M. (eds.), Signed Languages: Discoveries from International Research (pp. 103–119). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mohay, H., Milton, L., Hindmarsh, G., & Ganley, K. (1998). Deaf mothers as language models for hearing families with deaf children. In Weisel, A. (ed.), Issues Unresolved: New Perspectives on Language and Deafness (pp. 76–87). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. & Carlson, M. L. (2011). Sign perception and recognition in non-native signers of ASL. Language Learning and Development, 7, 149–168.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Grieve-Smith, A. B., MacFarlane, J., Staley, J., & Waters, G. (2008). Effects of language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition, 109, 41–53.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. & Kegl, J. A. (2000). Gestural precursors to linguistic constructs: How input shapes the form of language. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture (Vol.2, pp. 358–387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Kroll, J. F., Piñar, P., & Wilkinson, E. (2014). Bilingual word recognition in deaf and hearing signers: Effects of proficiency and language dominance on cross-language activation. Second Language Research, 30, 251–271.Google Scholar
Morford, J. P., Wilkinson, E., Villwock, A., Piñar, P., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118, 286–292.Google Scholar
Morgan, G., Barrett-Jones, S., & Stoneham, H. (2007). The first signs of language: Phonological development in British Sign Language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 3–22.Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Schouwstra, M., Culbertson, J., & Smith, K, Kirby, S. (2017). The cultural evolution of complex linguistic constructions in artificial sign languages. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Mous, M. (2007). A Sketch of Iraqw Grammar. Leiden: Leiden University, Centre of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. (2013). Language as technology: Some questions that evolutionary linguistics should address. In Lohndal, T. (ed.), In Search of Universal Grammar. From Old Norse to Zoque. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mulrooney, K. J. (2002). Variation in ASL fingerspelling. In Chute, P. M. & Lucas, C. (eds.), Turn-Taking, Fingerspelling, and Contact in Signed Languages (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Munakata, Y. & Pfaffly, J. (2004). Hebbian learning and development. Developmental Science, 7(2), 141–148.Google Scholar
Nänny, M. & Fischer, O. (2002). Iconicity in Language and Literature 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D. Bahan, B., & Lee, R. (2000). The Syntax of American Sign Language. Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Sandler, W. (1999). Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech, 42, 143–176.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J., Bavelier, D., Corina, D., Rauschecker, J., Karni, A., Lalwani, A., Braun, A., Clark, V., Jezzard, P., & Turner, R. (1998). Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: Biological constraints and effects of experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(3), 922–929.Google Scholar
Neville, H., Coffey, S., Lawson, D., Fischer, A., Emmorey, K., & Bellugi, U. (1997). Neural systems mediating American Sign Language: Effects of sensory experience and age: Effects of sensory experience and age of acquisition. Brain and Language, 57, 285–308.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J. & Lawson, D. (1987a) Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. I. Normal hearing adults. Brain Research/ Cognitive Brain Research, 405, 253–267.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J. & Lawson, D. (1987b). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research/Cognitive Brain Research, 405, 268–283.Google Scholar
Neville, H. J. & Lawson, D. (1987c). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task. III. Separate effects of auditory deprivation and acquisition of a visual language. Brain Research/ Cognitive Brain Research, 405, 284–294.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Evidence and argumentation: A reply to Everett (2009). Language, 85, 671–681.Google Scholar
Newman, A. J., Supalla, T., Fernandez, N., Newport, E. L., & Bavelier, D. (2015). Neural systems supporting linguistic structure, linguistic experience, and symbolic communication in sign language and gesture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 11684–11689.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1982). Task specificity in language learning? Evidence from American Sign Language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. A. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art (pp. 450–486). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. & Supalla, T. (2000). Sign language research at the millennium. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 103–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nittrouer, S. & Pnnington, B.. (2010). New approaches to the study of childhood language disorders. Current Directions in Psychological Science 19, 308–313.Google Scholar
Nobe, S. (2000). Where do most spontaneous representational gestures actually occur with respect to speech. In McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture (Vol. 2, pp. 186–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, D., McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Butterfield, S. (1997). The possible word constraint in the segmentation of continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 191–243.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. (2010). Sign languages in West Africa. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages (pp. 405–432). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Occhino, C. (2017). An introduction to embodied cognitive phonology: Claw-5 handshape distribution in ASL and Libras. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 25, 60–103.Google Scholar
Occhino, C., Anible, B., Wilkinson, E., & Morford, J. P. (2017). Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder. Gesture, 16, 100–126.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M., & Deaton, K. (eds.), Proceedings for the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 26. Vol. II: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology (pp. 319–338). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Kawasaki, H. (1984). Prosodic phonology and phonetics. Phonology, 1, 113–127.Google Scholar
Okrent, A. (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 Meier, R. P., Quinto, D. G., & Cormier, K. A., (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages (pp. 175–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orfanidou, E., Adam, R., Morgan, G., & McQueen, J. M. (2010). Recognition of signed and spoken language: Different sensory inputs, the same segmentation procedure. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 272–283.Google Scholar
Orlansky, M. & Bonvillian, J. (1984). The role of iconicity in early sign acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 47–63.Google Scholar
Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2012). Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 288–303.Google Scholar
Ortega, G. & Morgan, G. (2015). Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning, 65, 660–688.Google Scholar
Ortega, G., Sumer, B., & Ozyürek, A. (2014). Type of iconicity matters: Bias for action-based signs in sign language acquisition. In Bello, P., Guarini, M., McShane, M., & Scassellatie, B. (eds.), 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1114–1119). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Oxford, W. (2013). A contrast-based model of merger. In Keine, S. & Sloggett, S. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 42, Volume 2 (pp. 95–106). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Padden, C. (1983). Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Published 1988, New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. (2006). Learning to fingerspell twice. In Schick, B., Marschark, M., & Spencer, P. (eds.), Advances in the Sign Language Development of Deaf Children (pp.189–201). New York, NY/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. & Humphries, T. (2005) Inside Deaf Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. (1988). Grammatical theory and signed languages. In Newmeyer, F. J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: Volume 2, Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications (pp. 250–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. & Humphries, T. (1990). Deaf in America: Voices from a Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A., Meir, I., Aronoff, M., & Sandler, W. (2010). The grammar of space in two new sign languages. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 570–592). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. & Perlmutter, D. M. (1987). American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 335–375.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Reading ability in signing deaf children. Topics in Language Disorders, 18, 30–46.Google Scholar
Pallier, C., Colomé, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2001). The influence of native-language phonology on lexical access: Exemplar-based versus abstract lexical entries. Psychological Science, 12, 445–449.Google Scholar
Pan, Z. & Tang, G. (2017). Deaf children’s acquisition of the phonec features of handshape in Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL). Paper presented at the Conference on Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory (FEAST). University of Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Patel, R. & Brayton, J. T. (2009). Identifying prosodic contrasts in utterances produced by 4-, 7-, and 11-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 790–801.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1958) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 1931-1935. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Penfield, W. & Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain-Mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pendzich, Nina-Kristin. (2017). Lexical nonmanuals in German Sign Language (DGS). Doctoral dissertation. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 32–50.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 407–442.Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2017). Mapping language to the world: The role of iconicity in the sign language input. Developmental Science, 21(2), e12551.Google Scholar
Perniss, P., Thompson, R., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., Dubins, M. H., Jasinska, K., & Shalinsky, M. (2012). The “Perceptual Wedge Hypothesis” as the basis for bilingual babies’ phonetic processing advantage: New insights from fNIRS brain imaging. Brain and Language, 121, 130–143.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Holowka, S., Sergio, L. E., Levy, B., & Ostry, D. J. (2004). Baby hands that move to the rhythm of language: Hearing babies acquiring sign languages babble silently on the hands. Cognition, 93, 43–73.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Langdon, C., Stone, A., Andriola, D., Kartheiser, G., & Cochran, C. (2016). Visual sign phonology: Insights into human reading and language from a natural soundless phonology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7, 366–381.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A. & Marentette, P. F. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode: Evidence for the ontogeny of language. Science, 251, 1493–1496.Google Scholar
Petitto, L. A., Zatorre, R. J., Gauna, K., Nikelski, E. J., Dostie, D., & Evans, A. C. (2000). Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: Implications for the neural basis of human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 13961–13966.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. (2016). Non-manuals and tones: A comparative perspective on suprasegmentals and spreading. Linguística Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto, 11, 19–58.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Quer, J. (2010). Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 381–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, R. & Steinbach, M. (2004) On grammaticalization: Do sign languages follow the well-trodden paths? Presentation at the Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research conference, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency Effects and Emergent Grammar (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. & Hirschberg, J. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in discourse. In Cohen, P., Morgan, J., & Pollack, M. (eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 271–311). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinedo Peydró, F. J. (2000). Diccionario de la lengua de signos espanola. Madrid: CNSE.Google Scholar
Plato. Cratylus. Translation by C.D.C. Reeve, (1998), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Idsardi, W. (2011). Recognizing words from speech: The perception-action-memory loop. In Gaskell, G. & Zwitserlood, P. (eds.), Lexical Representation (pp. 171–196). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poizner, H. (1983). Perception of movement in American Sign Language: Effects of linguistic structure and linguistic experience. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 215–231.Google Scholar
Poizner, H., Bellugi, U., & Tweney, R.D. (1981). Processing of formational, semantic, and iconic information in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1146.Google Scholar
Poizner, H., Brentari, D., Kegl, J., & Tyrone, M. (2000). The structure of language as motor behavior: Evidence from signers with Parkinson’s disease. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited: An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 509–532). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Poizner, H., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1987). What the Hands Reveal about the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Wagner, A. D., Prull, M. W., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Functional specialization for semantic and phonological processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage, 10, 15–35.Google Scholar
Price, C. J., Moore, C. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Wise, R. J. S. (1997). Segregating semantic from phonological processes during reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 727–733.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory. Technical Report #2 of the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers, NJ.Google Scholar
Puupponen, A., Wainio, T., Burger, B., & Jantunen, T. (2015). Head movements in Finnish Sign Language on the basis of motion capture data: A study of the form and function of nods, nodding, head thrusts, and head pulls. Sign Language & Linguistics, 18, 41–89.Google Scholar
Pyers, J., Gollan, T. H., & Emmorey, K. (2009). Bimodal bilinguals reveal the source of tip-of the-tongue states. Cognition, 112, 323–329.Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2005). Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. In Georgala, E. & Howell, J. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 15 (pp. 152–168). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Quer, J. (2012). Negation. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 316–338). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radutzky, E. J. (1989). La lingua italiana dei segni: Historical change in the sign language of deaf people in Italy. Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3–34.Google Scholar
Ramsey, C. (1997). Deaf Children in Public Schools: Placement, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Ramus, F., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (1999). Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition, 73, 265–292.Google Scholar
Rathmann, C. & Mathur, G. (2012). Verb agreement. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 136–57). Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M. (1992). Meaningful Tone: A Study of Tonal Morphology in Compounds, Form Classes, and Expressive Phrases in White Hmong. Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Redd, Nola Taylor. (2012). “How Fast Does Light Travel? | The Speed of Light.” Space.com, Space.com, 7 Mar. 2018, www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html.Google Scholar
Reh, M. (1983). Krongo: A VSO language with postpositions. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 5, 45–55.Google Scholar
Reilly, J., McIntire, M., & Anderson, D. (1994). Look who’s talking! Point of view and character reference in mothers’ and children’s ASL narrative. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD).Google Scholar
Reilly, J., McIntire, M., & Bellugi, U. (1991). Baby face: A new perspective on universals in language acquisition. In Siple, P. & Fischer, S. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research: Psychology (pp. 9–23) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, J., McIntire, M., & Ursula Bellugi, U. (1990). Faces: The relationship between language and affect. In Volterra, V. & Erting, C. (eds.) From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 128–41). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Riazantseva, A. (2001). Second language proficiency and pausing a study of Russian speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 497–526.Google Scholar
Riedl, T. R. & Sperling, G. (1988). Spatial-frequency bands in complex visual stimuli: American Sign Language. JOSA A, 5, 606–616.Google Scholar
Rimor, M., Kegl, J., Lane, H., & Schermer, T. (1984). Natural phonetic processes underlie historical change & register variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 97–119.Google Scholar
Roberson, D. & Davidoff, J. (2000). The categorical perception of colors and facial expressions: The effect of verbal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 977–986.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. & Booij, G. E. (1990). Edge of constituent effects in Polish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 8(3), 427–463.Google Scholar
Russo, T. (2005) A cross-cultural, cross-linguistic analysis of metaphors in two Italian Sign Language registers. Sign Language Studies, 5, 333–359.Google Scholar
Sáfár, A. & Crasborn, O. (2013). A corpus-based approach to manual simultaneity. In Meurant, L., Sinte, A., Van Herreweghe, M., & Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.), Sign Language Research, Uses and Practices: Crossing Views on Theoretical and Applied Sign Language Linguistics (pp. 179–203). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sáfár, A. & Kimmelman, V. (2015). Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres. Sign Language & Linguistics, 18, 205–237.Google Scholar
Sagey, E. (1986). The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sanders, N. & Napoli, D. J. (2016a). Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language, 92, 275–297.Google Scholar
Sanders, N. & Napoli, D. J. (2016b). A cross-linguistic preference for torso stability in the lexicon. Sign Language & Linguistics, 19(2), 197–231.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1986). The spreading hand autosegment of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 50, 1–28.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1993). A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology, 10, 243–279.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1999a). The medium and the message: Prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 187–216.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1999b). Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Hall, T. A. & Kleinhenz, U. (eds.), Studies on the Phonological Word (pp. 223–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2009) Symbiotic symbolization by hand and mouth in sign language. Semiotica, 174, 241–75.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2010). Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society, 108, 298–328.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2012a). Visual prosody. In Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., & Woll, B. (eds.), Sign Language: An International Handbook (pp. 55–77). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2012b). Dedicated gestures and the emergence of sign language. Gesture, 12(3), 265–307.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2014). Emergence of phonetic and phonological features in sign language. Nordlyd, 41, 183–212.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2016). What comes first in language emergence? In Enfield, N. (ed.), Dependency in Language: On the Causal Ontology of Language Systems. Studies in Diversity in Linguistics 99 (pp. 67–86). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C. A. (2011a). The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29, 503–543.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Dachkovsky, S., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2011b). The emergence of complexity in prosody and syntax. Lingua, 121(13), 2014–2033.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2005). The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 2656–2665.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1986). Ape Language: From Conditioned Response to Symbol. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schane, S. (1984). The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 1, 129–155.Google Scholar
Schein, J. D. (1989). At Home among Strangers: Exploring the Deaf Community in the United States. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Cormier, K., & Johnston, T. (2018). Sociolinguistic typology and sign languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 200.Google Scholar
Schembri, A. & Johnston, T. A. (2007). Sociolinguistic variation in the use of fingerspelling in Australian Sign Language: A pilot study. Sign Language Studies, 7, 319–347.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., Jones, C., & Burnham, D. (2005). Comparing action gestures and classifier verbs of motion: Evidence from Australian Sign Language, Taiwan Sign Language, and nonsigners’ gestures without speech. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10, 272–290.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., McKee, D., McKee, R., Pivac, S., Johnston, T., & Goswell, D. (2009). Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change, 21, 193–231.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (1990). In search of a language: Influences from spoken Dutch on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schermer, T. (2001). The role of mouthings in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Some implications for the production of sign language dictionaries, in Boyes Braem, P. & Sutton-Spence, R. (eds.), The Hands are the Head of the Mouth: The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages (pp. 273–284). Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Schick, B. (1990). The effects of morphosyntactic structure on the acquisition of classifier predicates in ASL. In Lucas, C. (ed.), Sign Language Research: Theoretical Issues (pp. 358–374). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Schlehofer, D. & Tyler, I. J. (2016). Errors in second language learners’ production of phonological contrasts in American Sign Language. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 30–38.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2018a). Visible meaning: Sign language and the foundations of semantics. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. (2018b). Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguistics and Philosphy, 41, 295–365.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. & Lambert, J. (2017). Iconic plurality in ASL. Paper presented at the Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory Conference (FEAST). Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Scott, S. K. & Johnsrude, I. S. (2003). The neuroanatomical and functional organization of speech perception. Trends in Neurosciences, 26, 100–107.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S. & Cormier, K. (2015). Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language. Language and Cognition, 8, 501–532.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S. & Cormier, K. (2016). Perceptual categorization of handling handshapes in British Sign Language. Language and Cognition, 8, 501–532.Google Scholar
Sehyr, Z. S., Petrich, J., & Emmorey, K. (2016). Fingerspelled and printed words are recoded into a speech-based code in short-term memory. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1–16.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & Zevin, J. D. (2006). Connectionist models in developmental cognitive neuroscience: Critical periods and the paradox of success. Attention & Performance XXI: Processes of Change in Brain and Cognitive Development, 585–612.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax-phonology interface. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J., & Yu, A. C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd Edition. (pp. 435–84). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (1995). Children’s contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language, Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (2010). The emergence of two functions for spatial devices in Nicaraguan sign language. Human Development 53: 287–302.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (2005). Language emergence: Clues from a new Bedouin sign. Current Biology, 15, R463–R465.Google Scholar
Senghas, R., Senghas, A., & Pyers, J. (2005). The emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language: Questions of development, acquisition, and evolution. In Langer, J., Milbrath, C., & Parker, S. (eds.), Biology and Knowledge Revisited: From Neurogenesis to Psychogenesis (pp. 287–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sevcikova, Z. (2014). Categorical versus gradient properties of handling handshapes in British Sign Language (BSL). Doctoral dissertation, University College London, London.Google Scholar
Sherer, T. (1994). Prosodic Phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Shintel, H., Nusbaum, H. C., & Okrent, A. (2006). Analog acoustic expression in speech communication. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 167–177.Google Scholar
Shport, I. A. & Redford, M. A. (2014). Lexical and phrasal prominence patterns in school-aged children’s speech. Journal of Child Language, 41, 890–912.Google Scholar
Siegel, G. M., Clay, J. L., & Naeve, S. L. (1992). The effects of auditory and visual interference on speech and sign. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 35, 1358–1362.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., Morford, J. P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1993). Once is not enough: Standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language, 69, 683–715.Google Scholar
Siple, P. (1978). Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies, 19, 97–112.Google Scholar
Slowiaczek, L. M. & Pisoni, D. B. (1986). Effects of phonological similarity on priming in auditory lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 14, 230–237.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Johnson, M., McGillem, C., & Goffman, L. (2000). On the assessment of stability and patterning of speech movements. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 277–286.Google Scholar
Spencer, P. E., Bodner-Johnson, B. A., & Gutfreund, M. K. (1992). Interacting with infants with a hearing loss: What can we learn from mothers who are deaf? Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 64–78.Google Scholar
Sperling, G. (1980). Bandwidth requirements for video transmission of American Sign Language and finger spelling. Science, 210, 797–799.Google Scholar
Starr, C., Evers, C., & Starr, L. (2005). Biology: Concepts and Applications. Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and phonemes in deaf children. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 609–625.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. (1960). Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo (Occasional Papers 8).Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. Casterline, D., & Croneberg, C. (1965). A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Stone, A. (2017). Neural systems for infant sensitivity to phonological rhythmic-temporal patterning. Doctoral dissertation, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Stone, A., Kartheiser, G., Hauser, P. C., Petitto, L. A., & Allen, T. E. (2015). Fingerspelling as a novel gateway into reading fluency in deaf bilinguals. PloS One, 10, e0139610.Google Scholar
Stone, A., Petitto, L. A., & Bosworth, R. (2018). Visual sonority modulates infants’ attraction to sign language. Language Learning and Development, 14, 130–148.Google Scholar
Strickland, B., Geraci, C., Chemla, E., Schlenker, P., Kelepir, M., & Pfau, R. (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 of the United States of America, 112(19), 5968–73.Google Scholar
Strutt, R. & William, J. (1896). The Theory of Sound (2nd ed.). London: MacMillan & Co.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. (1982). Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. (2010). Using etymology to link ASL to LSF. Deaf Studies Digital Journal, 2, 1–7.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. & Clarke, P. (2015). Sign Language Archeology. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, T. & Newport, E. L. (1978). How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research (pp. 91–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Swingley, D. (2009). Contributions of infant word learning to language development. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 3617–3632.Google Scholar
Sze, F. (2008). Blinks and intonational phrases in Hong Kong Sign Language. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 83–107). Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Takkinen, Ritva (1995). Phonological acquisition of sign language: A deaf child’s developmental course from two to eight years of age. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Takkinen, Ritva (2003). Variation of handshape features in the acquisition process. In Baker., A., van den Bogaerde, B., & Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research (pp. 81–91). Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Tang, G., Brentari, D., González, C., Sze, F. (2010). Crosslinguistic variation in the use of prosodic cues: The case of blinks. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 519–542). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taub, S. (2001). Language from the Body: Iconicity and Metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. L. & Schwarz, R. J. (1955). The anatomy and mechanics of the human hand. Artificial Limbs, 2, 22–35.Google Scholar
Tent, Jan (1993). Phonetic symmetry in sound systems. Symmetry. Culture and Science, 4, 345–368.Google Scholar
Thelen, E. (1991). Motor aspects of emergent speech: A dynamic approach. In Krasnegor, N. A., Rumbaugh, D. M., Schiefelbusch, R. L., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.), Biological and Behavioral Determinants of Language Development (pp. 339–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Thierry, G. & Wu, Y. J. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious translation during foreign-language comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 12530–12535.Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Emmorey, K., & Gollan, T. H. (2005). “Tip of the fingers” experiences by deaf signers: Insights into the organization of a sign-based lexicon. Psychological Science, 16, 856–860.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 550.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The link between form and meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of iconicity for phonological decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1017.Google Scholar
Thompson, R., Vinson, D., Woll, B, & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science 23, 1443–1448.Google Scholar
Trager, G. L. (1958). Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies in Linguistics Occasional Papers, 13, 1–12.Google Scholar
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983). The role of phonological recoding for deaf readers. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Society, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. (1939). Grundzu ̈ge der phonologie [Principles of Phonology]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht (trans. 1969, University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. (1999). On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–255.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. (2012). The interface of semantics with phonology and morphology. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., & Portner, P. (eds.), Handbook of Linguistics and Communication Sciences, Vol 3: Semantics (pp. 2039–2069). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. E., Kegl, J., & Poizner, H. (1999). Interarticulator co-ordination in deaf signers with Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 37, 1271–1283.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. E. & Mauk, C. E. (2010). Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 317–328.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. E., & Mauk, C. E. (2016). The phonetics of head and body movement in the realization of American Sign Language signs. Phonetica, 73, 120–140.Google Scholar
Tyrone, M. E., Nam, H., Saltzman, E., Mathur, G., & Goldstein, L. (2010). Prosody and movement = in American Sign Language: A task-dynamics approach. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago.Google Scholar
Valli, C. (2006). The Gallaudet Dictionary of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
van den Bogaerde, B. (2000). Input and interaction in deaf families. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. (1995). The composition of handshapes. University of Trondheim, Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–18. Dragvoll, Norway.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. (2000). Modularity and modality in phonology. In Burton-Roberts, N., Carr, P., & Docherty, G. (eds.), Phonological Knowledge: Its Nature (pp. 207–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. & van der Kooij, E. (2006). Phonetic implementation and phonetic pre-specification in sign language phonology. In Goldstein, L., Whalen, D., & Best, C. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 8 (pp. 265–286). Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, H. & van der Kooij, E. (in press). Phonological structure of signs: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R. & Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van der Kooij, E. (2001). Weak drop in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Dively, V., Metzger, M., Taub, S., & Baer, A.M. (eds.), Signed Languages. Discoveries from International Research (pp. 27–42). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
van der Kooij, E. (2002). Reducing Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Phonetic Implementation and Iconic Motivation. Utrecht: LOT (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Google Scholar
van der Kooij, E. & van der Hulst, H. (2005). On the internal and external organization of sign language segments: Some modality-specific properties. In van Oostendorp, M. & van de Weijer, J. (eds.), The Internal Organization of Phonological Segments (pp. 153–180). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Veditz, G. W. (1913). The Preservation of Sign Language. B/W film, part of NAD Gallaudet Lecture Films series commissioned by National Association of the Deaf (1910–1920).Google Scholar
van ‘t Veer, B. (2015). Building a Phonological Inventory Feature Co-occurrence Constraints in Acquisition. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Woolfe, T., Dye, M. W., & Woll, B. (2005). Words, signs and imagery: When the language makes the difference. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1859–1863.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. (1996). Phonological Development: The Origins of Language in the Child. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, M. (1981). Mouth position & mouth movement in Norwegian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 33, 363–376.Google Scholar
Wallin, L (1992). Polysynthetic signs in Swedish Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Waters, G. & Doehring, D. (1990). The nature and role of phonological information in reading acquisition: Insights from congenitally deaf children who communicate orally. Reading and Its Development: Component Skills Approaches, 323–373.Google Scholar
Waugh, L. R. (2000). Against arbitrariness: Imitation and motivation revived, with consequences for textual meaning. In Violi, P. (ed.), Phonosymbolism and Poetic Language (pp. 25–56). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C. M. & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.Google Scholar
Wedel, A. (2004). Self-organization and categorization in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wetzels, L, & Mascaró, J. (1977). The typology of voicing and devoicing. Language 77, 207–244.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H., Best, C. T., & Irwin, J. R. (1997). Lexical effects in the perception and production of American English/p/allophones. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 501–528.Google Scholar
Whitworth, C. (2011). Features and natural classes in ASL handshapes. Sign Language Studies, 12(1), 46–71.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1994). Eyeblinks & ASL phrase structure. Sign Language Studies, 84, 221–240.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1997). A prosodic/pragmatic explanation for word order variation in ASL with typological implications. In Verspoor, M., Lee, K. D., & Sweetser, E. (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Constructions of Meaning (pp. 89–104). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Associates.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1999a). Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech, 42, 229–250.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1999b). Metrical structure, morphological gaps, and possible grammaticalization in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 217–244.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (2000). Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In Emmorey, K. & Lane, H. (eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited: Festschrift for Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima (pp. 213–244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 219–250). Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. (2010). The semantics–phonology interface. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 357–382). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1983). Roots: The search for origins of signs in ASL. Proceedings from the 19th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 314–336.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. & Patschke, C. (1999). Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics, 2, 3–41.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. & Patschke, C. (1998). Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 275–303.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. & Zelaznik, H. (1997). Kinematic Correlates of Stress and Position in ASL. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. (2001). Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, P. (2005). What do you think? Metaphor in thought and communication domains in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 5(3), 267–291.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. (2004). Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture, 4, 43–73.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S. & Occhino, C. (2016). Constructing signs: Place as a symbolic structure in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 371–404.Google Scholar
Wilcox, S., Rossini, P. & Pizzuto, E. (2010). Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey (pp. 332–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Newman, S. (2016a). Phonological substitution errors in L2 ASL sentence processing by hearing M2L2 learners. Second Language Research, 32, 347–66.Google Scholar
Williams, J. & Newman, S. (2016b). Impacts of visual sonority and handshape markedness on second language learning of American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21, 171–186.Google Scholar
Williamson, K. (1989). Tone and accent in Ịjọ. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.), Pitch Accent Systems (pp. 253–278). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.Google Scholar
Woods, D. L., Herron, T., Kang, X., Cate, A. D., & Yund, E. W. (2011). Phonological processing in human auditory cortical fields. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 42.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (1973). Implicational Lects on the Deaf Diglossic Continuum. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., & Desantis, S. (1977). Negative incorporation in French and American sign language. Language in Society, 6, 379–388.Google Scholar
Woodward, J., Erting, C., & Oliver, S. (1976). Facing and hand (l) ing variation in American Sign Language phonology. Sign Language Studies, 10(1), 43–51.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J. & Thierry, G. (2010). Chinese-English bilinguals reading English hear Chinese. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 7646–7651.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J. & Thierry, G. (2012). Unconscious translation during incidental foreign language processing. NeuroImage, 59, 3468–3473.Google Scholar
Wurm, S. A. & Mühlhäusler, P. (1985). Handbook of Tok Pisin (New Guinea Pidgin). Canberra, A.C.T.: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., Wang, S-P., & Cui, Y-L. (2015). Constructing covert dependencies – the case of wh-in-situ processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 139–166.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. (2007). Inflectional morphology in optimality theory. Doctoral dissertation. State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2017). The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yip, M. (1988). The obligatory contour principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 65–100.Google Scholar
Yu, A. C. L. (2011). On measuring phonetic precursor robustness: A response to Moreton. Phonology, 28, 491–518.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. (2003). Indo-Pakistani Sign Language grammar: A typological outline. Sign Language Studies, 157–212.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign languages of the world. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Boston, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. & de Vos, C. (2012). Sign Languages in Village Communities: Anthropological and Linguistic Insights. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zhao, W., Ziyi, P., & Tang, G. (2017). The perception of handshapes in the Hong Kong Sign Language. Presentation at the conference on Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Theory (FEAST).Google Scholar