Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:01:47.459Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2022

Andrew Nevins
Andrew Nevins
Affiliation:
University College London and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
When Minoritized Languages Change Linguistic Theory , pp. 175 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Edwin A. 1884. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. London: Seeley & Co.Google Scholar
Alok, Deepak, and Baker, Mark. 2018. On the mechanics (syntax) of indexical shift: Evidence from allocutive agreement in Magahi. Ms., New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, and Mchombo, Sam. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Problems for a theta-theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:493–506.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena,. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of SALT 14 20–37.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1976. Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Language 52:326–344.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Li, Charles N., ed. Mechanisms of Syntactic Change. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Andriani, Luigi, Casalicchio, Jan, Ciconte, Franceso, D’Alessandro, Roberta, Frasson, Alberto, Van Osch, Brechje, Sorgini, Luana, and Terenghi, Silvia. 2022. Documenting Italo-Romance minority languages in the Americas: Problems and tentative solutions. In Coler, Matt and Nevins, Andrew, eds., Contemporary Research in Minority and Diaspora Languages of Europe. Berlin: Language Science Press, ch. 2.Google Scholar
Anya, Uju. 2016. Racialized Identities in Second Language Learning: Speaking Blackness in Brazil. New York,: Routledge.Google Scholar
Apontes, Selmo. 2018. Descrição gramatical do oro waram, variante wari’ norte. Doctoral dissertation, Belo Horizonte: Federal University of Minas Gerais.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter, and Bresnan, Joan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:215–268.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Suppletive kin term paradigms in the languages of New Guinea. Linguistic Typology 18:413–448.Google Scholar
Baertsch, Karen, and Davis, Stuart. 2003. The split margin approach to syllable structure. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32:1–14.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:353–389.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark, Safir, Ken, and Sikuku, Justine. 2013. Complex anaphora in Lubukusu. In Orie, Ọlanike ọla and Sanders, Karen W., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 196–206.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1991. On the relation of serialization to verb extensions. In Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative and Cognitive Approaches. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry 45.3:341–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and Collins, Chris. 2006. Linkers and the Internal Structure of vP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24:307–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, Alan, and Coon, Jessica. 2014. Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: Consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 45:695–707.Google Scholar
Baniwa, Gersem. 2013. Lei das Cotas e os povos indígenas: mais um desafio para a diversidade. Cadernos de Pensamento Crítico Latino-Americano, 34:18–21.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sief, Bennis, Hans, Devos, Magda, Vogelaer, Gunther de, and van der Ham, Margreet. 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND), Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5:1–19.Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical Borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring: Linstok Press.Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin, Markowicz, Harry, and Woodward, James. 1973. A good rule of thumb: Variable phonology in American Sign Language. In Fasold, Ralph W. and Shuy, Roger W., eds., New Ways of Analyzing Variation II. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 291–302.Google Scholar
Baynton, Douglas C. 1996. Forbidden Signs: American Culture and the Campaign against Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beasley, Maya. 2011. Opting Out: Losing the Potential of America’s Young Black Elite. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, Krasikova, Sveta, Fleischer, Daniel, Gergel, Remus, Hofstetter, Stefan, Savelsberg, Christiane, Vanderelst, John, and Villalta, Elisabeth. 2009. Crosslinguistic variation in comparison constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9:1–66.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily. 2019. English isn’t generic for language, despite what NLP papers might lead you to believe. Symposium on Data Science & Statistics, Bellevue, WA, May 30.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Archna, Benmamoun, Elabbas, and Polinsky, Maria. 2009. Closest conjunct agreement in head final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9:67–88.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Walkow, Martin. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 951–1013.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. The nature of constraints on the nondominant hand in ASL. In Coulter, Geoffrey R., ed., Current Issues in ASL Phonology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Miller, Carol. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23:45–93.Google Scholar
Booker, Karen. 1982. Number suppletion in North American Indian languages. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 7:15–29.Google Scholar
Booth, Katie. 2021. The Invention of Miracles: Language, Power, and Alexander Graham Bell’s Quest to End Deafness. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40:343–359.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27:455–496.Google Scholar
Boyes-Braem, P. 1973. The Acquisition of Handshape in American Sign Language. Ms., La Jollla, CA: The Salk Institute.Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan, and Pensalfini, Rob. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 30:1–25.Google Scholar
Brennan, Mary. 1992. The Visual World of BSL: An Introduction. In Brien, David, ed., Dictionary of British Sign Language/English. London: Faber & Faber, pp. 1–133.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A Prosodic Model of Sign Language Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, and Goldsmith, John A.. 1993. Secondary licensing and the nondominant hand in ASL phonology. In Coulter, Geoffrey, ed., Phonetics and Phonology 3: Current Issues in ASL Phonology. San Diego, Academic Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, and Padden, Carol. 2001. Native and foreign vocabulary in American Sign Language: A lexicon with multiple origins. In Brentari, Diane, ed., Foreign Vocabulary in Sign languages: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation of Word Formation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenzinger, Matthias, Dwyer, Arienne M., de Graaf, Tjeerd, Grinevald, Colette, Krauss, Michael, Miyaoka, Osahito, Ostler, Nicholas, Sakiyama, Osamu, Villalón, María E., Yamamoto, Akira Y., and Zepeda, Ofelia. 2003. Language vitality and endangerment. Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, March 10–12. www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/00120-EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21:147–185.Google Scholar
Camargo-Souza, Livia. 2020. Locality domains for number-based suppletion: Evidence from Yawanawa. Ms., New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Carochi, Horacio. 1645. Arte de la lengua mexicana. Mexico City: Juan Ruyz.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 1991. The morphology and syntax of determiner phrases in Kiswahili. Doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2019. Noun class, gender, and the workings of Agree: Evidence from agreement with conjoined subjects in Xhosa. Ms., Storrs: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Cheek, Adrianne, Cormier, Kearsy, Repp, Ann, and Meier, Richard P.. 2001. Prelinguistic gesture predicts mastery and error in the production of early signs. Language 77.2:292–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa, and Sybesma, Rint. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:509–542.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339–405.Google Scholar
Choi, Incheol, Nisbett, Richard E., and Norenzayan, Ara. 1999. Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin 125:1:47–61.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, eds., Formal Syntax, New York: Academic Press, pp. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1975. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10:141–177.Google Scholar
Cojtií Cuxil, Demetrio. 1990. Lingüística e idiomas Mayas en Guatemala. In England, Nora C. and Elliot, Stephen R., eds., Lecturas sobre la lingüística Maya. Guatemala City: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamerica, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1973. The ergative: Variations on a theme. Lingua 32:239–253.Google Scholar
Connell, Bruce. 1994. The structure of labial-velar stops. Journal of Phonetics 22: 441–476.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2010. Rethinking split ergativity in Chol. International Journal of American Linguistics 76:207–253.Google Scholar
Coon, Jessica. 2020. The linguistics of Arrival: Heptapods, field linguistics, and Universal Grammar. In Punske, Jeffrey, Fountain, Amy, and Sanders, Nathan, eds., Language Invention for Linguistics Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Mtenje, Alfred D.. 1987. Gender agreement in Chichewa. Studies in African Linguistics 18:1–38.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2001. Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 1995. Articulatory symmetry in two-handed signs. Master’s thesis, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2011. The other hand in sign language phonology. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin and Hume, Elizabeth, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, pp. 223–240.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams, Harris, Luke Charles, HoSang, Daniel Martinez, and Lipsitz, George. 2019. Seeing Race Again: Countering Colorblindness across the Disciplines. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Croneberg, C. 1965. Sign language dialects. In Stokoe, William C., Casterline, Dorothy C. and Croneberg, Carl G., eds., A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Silver Springs, MD: Linstok Press, pp. 313–319.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Czaykowksa-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian Indigenous communities. Language Documentation & Conservation 3.1:15–50.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1990. Standard Average European as an exotic language. In Bechert, Johannes, Bernini, Giuliano, and Buridant, Claude, eds., Toward a Typology of European Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 1988. Syllable onsets as a factor in stress rules. Phonology 5:1–19.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1991. Bare sentences. In Proceedings of SALT 1 31–50.Google Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2020. Toward racial justice in linguistics: The case of Creole studies (Response to Charity Hudley et al.). Language 96.4:e292–e306.Google Scholar
Dell, François, and Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1985. Syllabic Consonants and Syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7.2:105–130.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1977. Word order universals and the existence of OVS languages. Linguistic Inquiry 8.3:590–599.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55:59–138.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eccarius, Petra, and Brentari, Diane. 2007. Symmetry and dominance: A cross-linguistic study of signs and classifier constructions. Lingua 117:1169–1201.Google Scholar
Edwards, Terra, and Brentari, Diane. 2020. Feeling phonology: The conventionalization of phonology in Protactile communities in the United States. Language 96.4: 819–840.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo and Jacobs, Haike, eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 59–88.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph Embley, and Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2014. English: The Language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 2007. The influence of Mayan-speaking linguists on the state of Mayan linguistics. In Austin, Peter K. and Simpson, Andrew, eds., Linguistiche Berichte Sonderheft 14: Endangered Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag, pp. 93–111.Google Scholar
Etxepare, Ricardo, and Irurtzun, Aritz. 2021. Gravettian hand stencils as sign language formatives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 376:20200205.Google Scholar
Everett, Dan, and Everett, Keren. 1984. On the relevance of syllable onsets to stress placement. Linguistic Inquiry 15:1–25.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã. Current Anthropology. 46.4:640–641.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and de Swart, Henriëtte. 2010. The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics 3.6:1–54.Google Scholar
Foley, William, and Van Valin, Robert. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foppolo, Francesca, and Staub, Adrian. 2020. The puzzle of number agreement with disjunction. Cognition 198:104–161.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51.3:696–719.Google Scholar
Galeano, Eduardo. 1997. Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy, Moore, Denny, and van der Voort, Hein. 2018. O patrimônio linguístico do Brasil: novas perspectivas e abordagens no planejamento e gestão de uma política da diversidade linguística. Revista do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional 38:194–219.Google Scholar
Gary, Judith, and Keenan, Edward. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, Peter and Sadock, Jerrold, eds., Grammatical Relations (Syntax and Semantics 8). New York: Academic Press, pp. 149–188.Google Scholar
Georgi, Doreen. 2012. A relativized probing approach to person encoding in local scenarios. Linguistic Variation 12, 153–210.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo. 2014. Spatial syntax in your hands. In Proceedings of NELS 44, 123–134.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna. 1998. Beyond expertise: The role of the linguist in language revitalization programs. In Ostler, Nicholas, ed., Endangered Languages: What Role for the Specialist? Proceedings of Second Foundation for Endangered Languages Conference. Bath, England: Foundation for Endangered Languages, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Gold, Jana Willer, Arsenijević, Boban, Batinić, Mia, Becker, Michael, Čordalija, Nermina, Kresić, Marijana, Leko, Nedžad, Marušič, Franc Lanko, Milićev, Tanja, Milićević, Nataša, Mitić, Ivana, Peti-Stantić, Anita, Stanković, Branimir, Šuligoj, Tina, Tušek, Jelena, and Nevins, Andrew. 2018. When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115.3:495–500.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the meaning of elements. In Greenberg, Joseph, ed., Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1972. Numerical classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Stanford Working Papers on Language Universals 9:1–39.Google Scholar
Gu, Shengyun. 2018. The feature system of handshapes and phonological processes in Shanghai Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Shanghai: East China Normal University.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Sánchez, Pedro. 2014. Las clases de verbos intransitivos y el alineamiento agentivo en el Chol de Tila, Chiapas. Master’s thesis, Mexico City: CIESAS.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Gabriella y Muhs, Flores, Yolanda Niemann, Carmen G. González, and Harris, Angela P.. 2012. Presumed Incompetent: The Intersections of Race and Class for Women in Academia. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of nonconfigurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1:5–47.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1992. On endangered languages and the safeguarding of diversity. Language 68.1:1–3.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Warlbiri. In Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 308–344.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. 1967. Review of Hidatsa Syntax by G. H. Matthews. International Journal of American Linguistics 33.4:329–341.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, Jeanne, Laverne Masayesva, and Pranka, Paula M.. 1991. On suppletion, selection, and agreement. In Georgopoulos, Carol and Ishihara, Roberta, eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 255–271.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Impoverishment and fission. In Bruening, Benjamin, Kang, Yoonjung, and McGinnis, Martha, eds., PF: Papers at the Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 425–450.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2020. Frankenduals: Their typology, structure, and significance. Language 96:60–93.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. A morphosyntactic account of the ‘Latinate’ ban on dative shift in English. Talk delivered at UCSC, May 15. Available at: https://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~hharley/PDFs/2009-05-15UCSCExhibitHandout.pdf.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40:225–276.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Henderson, Brent. 2018. Bantu applicatives and Chimiini instrumentals. In Agwuele, Augustine and Bodomo, Adams, eds., The Routledge Handbook of African Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 262–280.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33:61–83.Google Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Language Universals, Markedness Theory, and Natural Phonetic Processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory, Kritchevsky, Mark, Bellugi, Ursula, and Klima, Edward S.. 1996. The role of the left frontal operculum in sign language aphasia. Neurocase 2:373–380.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane H. 2008. The Everyday Language of White Racism. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hill, Joseph C. 2021. Black ASL. www.josephchill.com/black-asl.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203:88–97.Google Scholar
Hodge, Gabriella, Jones, Kerry, and Nevins, Andrew. 2022. Refocusing the priorities of academic linguists: a discussion. Podcast in preparation.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71:103–132.Google Scholar
Hudley, Anne H. Charity, Maria Garraffa, and Nevins, Andrew. 2022. Refocusing the priorities of academic linguists: a discussion. Podcast in preparation.Google Scholar
Hudley, Anne H. Charity, Christine Mallinson, and Bucholtz, Mary. 2020a. From theory to action: Working collectively toward a more antiracist linguistics (Response to commentators). Language 96.4:e307–e319.Google Scholar
Hudley, Anne H. Charity, Christine Mallinson, and Bucholtz, Mary. 2020b. Toward racial justice in linguistics: interdisciplinary insights into theorizing race in the discipline and diversifying the profession. Language 96.4:e200–e235.Google Scholar
Hudley, Anne H. Charity, Christine Mallinson, Sudler, Kenay, and Fama, Mackenzie. 2018. The sociolinguistically trained speech-language pathologist: Using knowledge of African American English to aid and empower African American clientele. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups 3.1:118–131.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1996. Acquisitional evidence for the phonological composition of handshape. In Koster, Charlotte and Wijnen, Frank, eds., Proceedings of Gala. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 39–56.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues. Berlin: Die Druckerei der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1976. Phonologization. In Juilland, Alphonse, ed., Linguistic Studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, pp. 407–418.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., and Salmons, Joseph C.. 2007. Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition. Phonology 24.1:121–145.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague; Mouton (originally published as Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze).Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Why “mama” and “papa”? In Jakobson, Roman, ed., Phonological Studies (Selected Writings, Vol. 2). The Hague: Mouton, pp. 538–545.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:39–76.Google Scholar
Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and Interpretation from a Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1913/1961. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Copenhagen: Munksgaard/London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Charlene A. 2014. Articulation of deaf and hearing spaces using deaf space design guidelines. Master’s thesis, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kimberly. 2021. Suppletion in a three-way number system: Evidence from Creek. Linguistic Inquiry. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00429Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, and Schembri, Adam C.. 1999. On defining lexeme in a signed language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2:115–185.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, and Schembri, Adam C.. 1999. Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Kerry. 2019. Contemporary Khoesan languages of South Africa. Critical Arts 33:55–73.Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2014. The syntax of OVS word order in Hixkaryana. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32:1089–1104.Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1977. Demonstratives. In Almog, Joseph, Perry, John and Wettstein, Howard, eds., Themes from Kaplan (1989). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–564.Google Scholar
Kasbarian, J.-M. 1997. Langue minorée et langue minoritaire. In Moreau, Marie-Louise, ed., Sociolinguistique, concepts de base. Bruxelles: Mardaga, pp. 185–188.Google Scholar
Kayambazinthu, Edrinnie. 1998. The language planning situation in Malawi. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 19.5:369–439.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A., Southard, Dan L., and Goodman, David. 1979. On the nature of human interlimb coordination. Science 203:1029–1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2004. Studies in Zazaki Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2011. Reversals in Poe and Stevens. Wallace Stevens Journal 35:224–239.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Stevens, Kenneth Noble. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82:33–63.Google Scholar
Kilomba, Grada. 2021. Plantation Memories: Episodes of Everyday Racism. Toronto: Between the Lines.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word formation and the Lexicon. In Ingemann, Frances, ed., Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence: University of Kansas, pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Roberts, Ian and Battye, Adrian, eds., Clause Structure and Language Change, 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–169.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van der Kooij, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Phonetic implementation and iconic motivation. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden: University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Kotek, Hadas, Dockum, Rikker, Babinski, Sarah, and Geissler, Christopher. 2021. Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic example sentences. Language 97.4:653–677.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 398–411.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 8:61–96.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1958. Sign Language Inquiry. International Journal of American Linguistics 24.1:1–19.Google Scholar
Kubota, Ryuko. 2002. The author responds: (Un)raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 36.1:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Jeremy, and Aristodemo, Valentina. 2017. Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language. Semantics and Pragmatics 10.6:1–49.Google Scholar
Kurlansky, Mark. 1999. The Basque History of the World. New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar
Kusters, Annelies. 2015. Deaf Space in Adamorobe: An Ethnographic Study of a Village in Ghana. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19.3:273–309.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of (r) in New York City Department Stores. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 2006. Deriving split ergativity in the progressive. In Johns, Alana, Massam, Diana, and Ndayiragije, Juvenal, eds., Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 173–196.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Harlan., Boyes-Braem, Penny, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1976. Preliminaries to a Distinctive Feature Analysis of Handshapes in American Sign Language. Cognitive Psychology 8:263–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laughren, Mary. 1982. Warlpiri Kinship Structure. In Heath, Jeffrey, Merlan, Francesca, and Rumsey, Alan, eds., Languages of Kinship in Aboriginal Australia. Sydney: Oceania Linguistics Monographs, pp. 77–85.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2001. The configurational structure of a nonconfigurational language. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1:63–99.Google Scholar
Léglise, Isabelle, and Alby, Sophie. 2006. Minorization and the process of (de)minoritization: The case of Kali’na in French Guiana. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 182:67–85.Google Scholar
Leonard, Wesley Y. 2020. Insights from Native American Studies for theorizing race and racism in linguistics (Response to Charity Hudley, Mallinson, and Bucholtz). Language 96:e281–e291.Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, Börstell, Carl, Belsitzman, Gal, and Sandler, Wendy. 2016. Taking meaning in hand: Iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19:37–81.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1983. On the nature of ergativity. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan, and Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48:839–862.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane, and Klima, Edward S.. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer and Siple, Patricia, eds., Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 191–210.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi. 2018. New perspectives on the count-mass distinction: Understudied languages and psycholinguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass 12:e12303.Google Scholar
Linguistic Society of America. 2019. LSA statement on race. Online: www.linguisticsociety.org/content/lsa-statement-race, approved May 4, 2019.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe, and Guardiano, Cristina. 2009. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. Lingua 119:1679–1706.Google Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Bayley, R., and Valli, C.. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation in American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Goeke, Amber, Briesacher, Rebecca, and Bayley, Robert. 2007. Phonological Variation in American Sign Language: 2 Hands or 1? Paper presented at NWAV 36, University of Pennsylvania, October 11. Available at: https://www.ling.upenn.edu/NWAV/abstracts/nwav36_lucas_goeke_briesacher_bayley.pdf.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary, and Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLOS ONE 5.1:e8559.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, Peter F., Rogers, Lesley J., and Vallortigara, Giorgio. 2009. Origins of the left and right brain. Scientific American 301:60–67.Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2014. Language shifts in free indirect discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics 43:143–167.Google Scholar
Major, Travis, and Mayer, Connor. 2019. What indexical shift sounds like: Uyghur intonation and interpreting speech reports. In Proceedings of NELS 49 255–264.Google Scholar
Mallery, Garrick. 1886. Sign Language among North American Indians Compared with That among Other Peoples and Deaf-Mutes. New York: Madison & Adams Press.Google Scholar
Mantovan, Lara. 2020. Exploring the effects of phrase-final lengthening in Italian Sign Language (LIS) noun phrases. Revista Linguí Stica 16:250–273.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Reuland, Eric, ed., Arguments and Case. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Mchombo, Sam A., ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–150.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander, eds., Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Vol. 4.2 of U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club, University of Pennsylvania, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar
Marentette, Paula., and Mayberry, Rachel I.. 2000. Principles for an Emerging Phonological System: A Case Study of Early ASL Acquisition. In Chamberlain, Charlene, Morford, Jill P., and Mayberry, Rachel I., eds., Language Acquisition by Eye. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
de Mareüil, Philippe Boula, Adda, Gilles, Lamel, Lori, Rilliard, Albert, and Vernier, Frédéric. 2019. A speaking atlas of minority languages of France: Collection and analyses of dialectal data. In Calhoun, Sasha, Escudero, Paola, Tabain, Marija, and Warren, Paul, eds., 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne. Canberra: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, Inc.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz, and Mous, Maarten. 2017. Valency and expectation in Bantu applicatives. Linguistics Vanguard 3.1:1–15.Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2020. Numerals and the theory of number. Semantics and Pragmatics 13.3:1–57.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack B. 2011. A Grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1957. Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 15:105–116.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, and Nevins, Andrew. 2020. Distributed agreement in participial sandwiched configurations. In Smith, Peter W., Mursell, Johannes, and Hartmann, Katharina, eds., Agree to Agree: Agreement in the Minimalist Programme. Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 179–198.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew, and Badecker, William. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18:39–77.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew, and Saksida, Amanda. 2007. Last-conjunct agreement in Slovenian. In Compton, Robert, Goledzinowska, Magda, and Savchenko, Ulyana, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15, (The Toronto Meeting). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 210–227.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. H. 1965. Hidatsa Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. Strategies of quantification in St’át’imcets and the rest of the world. In Gil, Kook-Hee, Harlow, Stephen, and Tsoulas, George, eds., Cross-Linguistic Studies of Quantification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 14.Google Scholar
McCaskill, Carolyn, Lucas, Ceil, Bayley, Robert, and Hill, Joseph C.. 2011. The Hidden Treasure of Black ASL: Its History and Structure. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In Kim, Min-Joo and Strauss, Uri, eds., Proceedings of NELS 31. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 333–349.Google Scholar
Mchombo, Sam. 2004. The Syntax of Chichewa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1993. Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11:347–379.Google Scholar
Meinhof, Carl. 1906. Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 2003. Suppletion. In Frawley, William J., ed., International Encyclopedia of Linguistics 2nd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchley, Hazel. 2015. Agreement and coordination in Xitsonga, Sesotho, and IsiXhosa: An optimality theoretic perspective. Master’s thesis, Makhanda, South Africa: Rhodes University.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Tsujioka, Takae. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13:1–38.Google Scholar
Montoya, Ignacio L. 2020. Enabling excellence and racial justice in universities by addressing structural obstacles to work by and with people from racially minoritized communities: Response to Charity Hudley et al. Language 96:e236–e246.Google Scholar
Moosally, Michelle. 1998. Noun phrase coordination: Ndebele agreement patterns and crosslinguistic variation. Doctoral dissertation, Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Moskal, Beata. 2013. On some suppletion patterns in nouns and pronouns. Paper presented at PhonoLAM, Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam, September 6th. http://homepages.uconn.edu/~bam09006/Downloads_files/PhonoLAM_On some suppletion patterns in nouns and pronouns.pdf.Google Scholar
Msaka, Peter Kondwani. 2019. Nominal classification in Bantu revisited: The perspective from Chichewa. Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch, South Africa: Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter. 1959. Cross-language parallels in parental kin terms. Anthropological Linguistics 1.9:1–5.Google Scholar
Murphy, Andrew, and Puškar, Zorica. 2017. Closest conjunct agreement is an illusion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36:1207–1261.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, and Sutton-Spence, Rachel. 2010. Limitations on simultaneity in sign language. Language 86:647–662.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, and Wu, Jeff. 2003. Morpheme structure constraints on two-handed signs in American Sign Language: Notions of symmetry. Sign Language & Linguistics 6:123–205.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29:939–971.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1990. Nominal and Verbal Plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicodemus, Brenda, and Smith, Caroline. 2005. Prosody and utterance boundaries in ASL interpretation. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 32.1:275–285.Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin A., Page, Karen M., and Sigmund, Karl. 2000. Fairness versus reason in the Ultimatum Game. Science 289:1773–1775.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA, MIT.Google Scholar
Ohala, John, and Lorentz, James. 1977. The story of [w]: An exercise in the phonetic explanation for sound patterns. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3:577–599.Google Scholar
Olson, D. 1977. From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review 47:257–281.Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo, and Morgan, Gary. 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
Padden, Carol A., and Perlmutter, David M. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5:335–375.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A., and Humphries, Tom. 1988. Deaf in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pettenati, Paola, Stefanini, Silvia, and Volterra, Virginia. 2010. Motoric characteristics of representational gestures produced by young children in a naming task. Journal of Child Language 37:887–911.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland. 2009. Grammar as Processor: A Distributed Morphology Account of Spontaneous Speech Errors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Plaster, Keith, and Polinsky, Maria. 2007. Women are not dangerous things: Gender and categorization. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 12:115–158.Google Scholar
Player, David. 2021. How the white deaf people benefit from white privilege. Available at https://dplayer84.medium.com.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Applicative constructions. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. URL https://wals.info/chapter/109.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1963. Some syntactic rules in Mohawk. Doctoral dissertation, New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
Pranka, Paula M. 1983. Syntax and Word Formation. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Py, Bernard, and Jeanneret, René. 1989. Minorisation linguistique et interaction. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2013. Attitude ascriptions in sign languages and role shift. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting of the Texas Linguistics Society 12–38.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan, Albizu, Pablo, and Etxepare, Ricardo. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32:1273–1330.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1986. Some remarks on direct and indirect speech in Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Coulmas, Florian, ed., Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 47–76.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: An overview. Journal of Academic Ethics 4:123–155.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2021. Can formal linguistics help language reclamation? Paper presented at the WCCFL 39, Tucson: University of Arizona. Available at: https://youtu.be/1gWAw0O-1vM.Google Scholar
Riedel, Kristina. 2009. The syntax of object marking in Sambaa: A comparative Bantu perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Riehl, Anastasia. 2008. The phonology and phonetics of nasal obstruent sequences. Doctoral dissertation, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane, ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene, Salles, Raiane, and Sandalo, Filomena. 2018. Word order in control: Evidence for self-embedding in Pirahã. In Amaral, Luiz, Maia, Marcus, Nevins, Andrew, and Roeper, Tom, eds., Recursion across Domains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–126.Google Scholar
Ross, Lee D., Amabile, Teresa M., and Steinmetz, Julia L.. 1977. Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:485–494.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Salanova, Andrés. 2007. Nominalizations and aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2015. The Interaction of Focus and Givenness in Italian Clause Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanches, Mary, and Slobin, Linda. 1973. Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal. Stanford Working Papers on Language Universals 11:1–22.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan, and Napoli, Donna Jo. 2016. A cross-linguistic preference for torso stability in the lexicon: Evidence from 24 sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 19:197–231.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan, Umbal, Pocholo, and Konnelly, Lex. 2020. Methods for increasing equity, diversity, and inclusion in linguistics pedagogy. In Hernández, Angelica and Butterworth, M. Emma, eds., Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Online: https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2020/Sanders_Umbal_Konnelly_CLA-ACL2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2012. Visual prosody. In Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus, and Woll, Bencie, eds., Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1930. Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65:1–296.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2018. False speech reports in Pirahã: A comprehension experiment. In Amaral, Luiz, Maia, Marcus, Nevins, Andrew, and Roeper, Tom, eds., Recursion across Domains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–34.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Ch. Bally et A. Sechehaye with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, McKee, David, McKee, Rachel, Pivac, Sara, Johnston, Trevor, and Goswell, Della. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 21:193–231.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality: A cross-categorial approach. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Segall, Marshall H., Campbell, Donald T., and Herskovits, Melville J.. 1966. The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Seki, Lucy, and Nevins, Andrew. 2018. Strategies of embedding and the complementizer layer in Kamaiurá. In Boechat, Alessandro and Nevins, Andrew, eds., O apelo das árvores. Campinas: Editora Pontes, pp. 417–444.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18:445–479.Google Scholar
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana, Krifka, Manfred, Ameka, Felix, Kung, Susan, Bolton, Lissant, Monroig, Miyuki, Blumtritt, Jonathan, Neba, Ayu’Nwi Ngwabe, Carpenter, Brian, and Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2019. Public access to research data in language documentation: Challenges and possible strategies. Language Documentation and Conservation 13:545–563.Google Scholar
Shklovsky, Kirill, and Sudo, Yasutada. 2014. The syntax of monsters. Linguistic Inquiry 45:381–402.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, Theodore, and Bonvillian, John D.. 1993a. Location, handshape & movement: Young children’s acquisition of the formational aspects of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 78:31–52.Google Scholar
Siedlecki, Theodore, and Bonvillian, John D.. 1993b. Phonological deletion revisited: Errors in young children’s two-handed signs. Sign Language Studies 80:223–242.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:327–363.Google Scholar
Silbiger, Nyssa J., and Stubler, Amber D.. 2019. Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. Peer J 7:e8247.Google Scholar
da Silva, Mário Coelho, and Nevins, Andrew. 2020. Maxakalí has suppletion, numerals and associatives but no plurals. Linguistic Variation 20.2:271–287.Google Scholar
Simango, Silvester Ron. 2019. English prepositions in isiXhosa spaces: Evidence from code-switching. In Hickey, Raymond, ed., English in Multilingual South Africa: The Linguistics of Contact and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–328.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane, and Wigglesworth, Gillian. 2019. Language diversity in Indigenous Australia in the 21st century. Current Issues in Language Planning 20.1:67–80.Google Scholar
Singerman, Adam. 2018. The Morphosyntax of Tuparí, a Tupían language of the Brazilian Amazon. Doctoral dissertation, Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 19:95–110.Google Scholar
Skilton, Amalia. 2021. Tone, stress, and their interactions in Cushillococha Ticuna. Ms., Austin: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry. 1997. “Dative sickness” in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12:675–736.Google Scholar
Smitherman, Geneva. 2017. Raciolinguistics, “mis-education,” and language arts teaching in the 21st century. Language Arts Journal of Michigan 32.2:Article 3.Google Scholar
Snyder, William, and Stromswold, Karin. 1997. The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28:281–317.Google Scholar
Soltan, Usama. 2007. On agree and postcyclic merge in syntactic derivations: First conjunct agreement in standard Arabic. In Benmamoun, Elabbas, ed., Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume XIX: Urbana, IL, April 2005, 191–213.Google Scholar
Sotto-Santiago, Sylk. 2019. Time to reconsider the word minority in academic medicine. Journal of Best Practices in Health Professions Diversity 12.1:72–78.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2000. Person and point of view in Navajo. In Jelinek, Eloise, Carnie, Andrew, and Willie, Mary, eds., Papers in Honor of Ken Hale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1969. The acquisition of phonetic representation. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 443–451.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Closure, release, and nasal contours. In Huffman, Marie K. and Krakow, Rena A. eds., Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 401–470.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dafina-Lazarus. 2013. Racially minoritized students at U.S. four-year institutions. The Journal of Negro Education 82.2:184–197.Google Scholar
Stewart, Jesse, and Kohlberger, Martin. 2017. Earbuds: A method for analyzing nasality in the field. Language Documentation and Conservation 11:49–80.Google Scholar
Stoianov, Diane, and Nevins, Andrew. 2017. The phonology of handshape distribution in Maxakalí sign. In Lindsey, Geoff and Nevins, Andrew, eds., Sonic Signatures. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 231–262.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf. New York: Buffalo University, reprinted in The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10.1:3–37.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C., Casterline, Dorothy C. and Croneberg, Carl G.. 1965. A Dictionary of American Sign Language on Linguistic Principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2012. On the semantics of phi features on pronouns. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2016. The semantic role of classifiers in Japanese. In Rothstein, Susan and Šķilters, Jurǵis, eds., Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Vol. 11 of Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. Kansas: New Prairie Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2011. A plea for syntax and a return to first principles: Monstrous agreement in Tamil. In Ashton, Neil, Chereches, Anca, and Lutz, David, eds., Proceedings of SALT 21:674–693.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Suomi, Kari. 1983. Palatal vowel harmony: A perceptually motivated phenomenon? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6:1–35.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija. 2004. VC vs. CV syllables: A comparison of Aboriginal languages with English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34:175–200.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija. 2009. A preliminary study of jaw movement in Arrernte consonant production. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39:33–51.Google Scholar
Tabak, John. 2006. Significant Gestures: A History of American Sign Language. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tamburelli, Marco, and Tosco, Mauro. 2021. Contested Languages: The Hidden Multilingualism of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Yu. 2017. Phonotactically-driven rendaku in surnames: A linguistic study using social media. In Kaplan, Aaron et al., eds., Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 519–528.Google Scholar
Telles, Edward. 2004. Race in Another America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, Abigail. 2018. Plural verbs, participant number, and agree. In Bennett, William. G. et al. eds., Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 35. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 391–398.Google Scholar
Tkachman, Oksana, Purnomo, Gracellia, and Gick, Bryan. 2021. Repetition preferences in two-handed balanced signs: Vestigial locomotor central pattern generators shape sign language phonetics and phonology. Frontiers in Communication 5:612973.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2016. Vocabulary insertion and locality: Verb suppletion in Northern Paiute. In Hammerly, Christopher and Prickett, Brandon, eds., Proceedings of NELS 46. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 247–257.Google Scholar
Topintzi, Nina, and Nevins, Andrew. 2017. Moraic onsets in Arrernte. Phonology 34:615–650.Google Scholar
Truscott, Adriano. 2014. When is a linguist not a linguist: The multifarious activities and expectations for a linguist in an Australian language centre. Language Documentation and Conservation 8:384–408.Google Scholar
Tsikewa, Adrienne. 2021. Reimagining the current praxis of field linguistics training: Decolonial considerations. Language 97.4:e293–e319.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2006. Suppletion in Verb Paradigms: Bits and Pieces of a Puzzle. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles F. 1958. Sign language analysis, on one level or two? International Journal of American Linguistics 24.1:71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, Jenneke. 2022. A featural typology of Bantu agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weisser, Philipp. 2017. Why is there no such thing as closest conjunct case? In Lamont, Andrew and Tetzloff, Katerina, eds., Proceedings of NELS 47. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, pp. 219–233.Google Scholar
West, La Mont. 1960. The sign language, an analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Bloomington: University of Indiana.Google Scholar
Westbury, John. 1983. Enlargement of the supraglottal cavity and its relation to stop consonant voicing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 73.4:1322–1336.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo, and Nevins, Andrew. 2018. Prenasalized and postoralized consonants: The diverse functions of enhancement. Language 94:834–866.Google Scholar
Wilhelm, Andrea. 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics 16:39–68.Google Scholar
Wągiel, Marcin. 2018. Subatomic quantification. Doctoral dissertation, Czech Republic: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Woo, Nancy. 1969. Prosody and phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Wood, Esther Jane. 2007. The semantic typology of pluractionality. Doctoral dissertation, Berkeley, University of California.Google Scholar
Woodward, James, and DeSantis, Susan. 1977. Two to one it happens: Dynamic phonology in two sign languages. Sign Language Studies 17:329–346.Google Scholar
Woodward, James C. Jr. and Woodward, J.. 1976. Black Southern Signing. Language in Society 5.2:211–218.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective, and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:181–227.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison, and Grace, George W.. 2007. The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua 117:543–578.Google Scholar
Xavier, André Nogueira. 2014. Uma ou duas? Eis a questão!: Um estudo do parâmetro número de mãos na produção de sinais da Língua Brasileira de Sinais (Libras). Doctoral dissertation, Campinas, Brazil: UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Xrakovskij, Viktor. 1997. Semantic types of the plurality of situations and their natural classification. In Xrakovskij, Viktor, ed., Typology of Iterative Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 3–64.Google Scholar
Yamada, Racquel-María. 2007. Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: Practical application of the empowerment model. Language Documentation and Conservation 1:257–282.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. Pluractionality in Chechen. Natural Language Semantics 11:289–321.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2012. Object marking in isiZulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30:219–235.Google Scholar
Zimmer, June. 1989. Toward a description of register variation in American Sign Language. In Lucas, Ceil, ed., The Sociolinguistics of the Deaf Community. New York: Academic Press, pp. 253–272.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Cyril Edward. 1995. Coordination: the syntax of & P. Doctoral dissertation, Irvine: University of California.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Andrew Nevins, University College London and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Book: When Minoritized Languages Change Linguistic Theory
  • Online publication: 18 November 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029889.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Andrew Nevins, University College London and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Book: When Minoritized Languages Change Linguistic Theory
  • Online publication: 18 November 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029889.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Andrew Nevins, University College London and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
  • Book: When Minoritized Languages Change Linguistic Theory
  • Online publication: 18 November 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009029889.013
Available formats
×