Formal Semantics of Sign Languages

Linguistics and Language Compass

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 719-734

  Zucchi, Sandro ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870217660     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1749818X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/lnc3.348     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Anand, P., and A. Nevins 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. by Watanabe Kazuha and Robert B. Young, 20-37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
2. Benjamin, B. 1996. Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language PhD thesis, Boston University.
3. Benedicto, E., and D. Brentari 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Argument changing properties of classifiers in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(4). 783-810.
4. Cecchetto, C., C. Geraci, and S. Zucchi 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24(4). 945-75.
5. Cecchetto, C., and A. Zucchi 2006. Event descriptions and classifier predicates in sign languages. Talk presented at the workshop on Lexicon, syntax, and events in honor of Anita Mittwoch. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
6. Chierchia, G. 1995. Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, Presupposition, and the theory of grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7. Cogill-Koez, D. 2000. Signed language classifier predicates: linguistic structures or shematic visual representation? Sign Language and Linguistics 3(2). 153-207.
8. Cooper, R. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. Syntax and semantics 10. ed. by F. Heny and H. Schnelle, 61-92, New York: Academic Press.
9. Cruz Aldrete, M. 2008. Gramática de la Lengua de Señas Mexicana. PhD thesis, Colegio de México.
10. Emmorey, K. (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Emmorey, K., and M. Herzig 2003. Categorical versus gradient properties of classifier constructions in ASL. Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, ed. by K. Emmorey, 221-46. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Emmorey, K., and J. Reilly (eds) 1995. Language, gesture, and space. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Evans, G. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers and relative clauses (1). The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7. 467-536. Reprinted in: Evans, G., 1985, Collected papers, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 76-152.
14. Evans, G.. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11(2). 337-62.
15. Friedman, L. A. 1975. Space, time, and person reference in American Sign Language. Language 51(4). 940-61.
16. Geach, P. T. 1962. Reference and generality. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
17. Giacomello, S. 2007. I classificatori nella lingua italiana dei segni. Master's thesis, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca.
18. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof 1990. Dynamic montague grammar. Papers from the second symposium on logic and language, ed. by L.Kálmán and L. Pólos, 3-48. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
19. Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof 1991. Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1). 39-100.
20. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases, PhD thesis, Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts, Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.
21. Heim, I.. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13(2). 137-78.
22. Heim, I.. 1997. Tense in compositional semantics: introduction. Handout for the MIT seminar on Tense, Aspect and Events, Spring 1997.
23. Hyman, L. (ed.) 1979. Aghem Grammatical Structure, Vol. 7 of Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
24. Kamp, H. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by J.Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof, 277-322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. Reprinted in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, and M. Stokhof (eds.), Truth, Interpretation and Information. Foris, Dordrecht, 1984.
25. Kamp, H., and U. Reyle 1993. From discourse to logic, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
26. Kaplan, D. 1977. Demonstratives. Manuscript, University of California at Los Angeles. Published in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. K. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. 1989, pp. 481-563. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. Lee, R. G., C. Neidle, D. MacLaughlin, B. Bahan, and J. Kegl 1997. Role shift in ASL: a syntactic look at direct speech. Syntactic structure and discourse function: an examination of two constructions in American Sign Language, ed. by C. Neidle, D.MacLaughlin and R. G. Lee, 24-45. Boston, MA: Boston University, American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project Report No. 4.
28. Lewis, D. K. 1980. Index, context, and content. Philosophy and grammar, ed. by S. Kanger and S. Öhman, 79-100. Dordrecht: Reidel.
29. Liddell, S. K. and R. E. Johnson 1987. An analysis of spatial-locative predicates in American Sign Language. Paper presented at the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research.
30. Lillo-Martin, D. 2002. Where are all the modality effects? Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages ed. by R. P.Meier, K. Cormier and D. Quinto-Pozos, 241-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Lillo-Martin, D.. 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. Language, gesture, and space, ed. by K. Emmorey and J. Reilly, 155-70. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Lillo-Martin, D., and E. S. Klima 1991. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. Theoretical issues in sign language research, ed. by S. D. Fischer and P. Siple, 191-210. Vol. 1 Linguistics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Macken, E., J. Perry, and C. Haas 1993. Richly grounding symbols in ASL. Sign Language Studies(81). 375-94.
34. Meier, R. P. 1990. Person deixis in American Sign Language. Theoretical issues in Sign Language research, ed. by S. D. Fischer and P. Siple, Vol. 1 Linguistics, 175-90. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Meir, I. 1999. A perfect marker in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language and Linguistics 2(1). 43-62.
36. Neidle, C., J. Kegl, D. MacLaughlin, B. Bahan, and R. G. Lee 2000. The syntax of American sign language: functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
37. Padden, C. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, New York: Garland Press.
38. Parsons, T. 1978. Pronouns as paraphrases. Manuscript, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
39. Petronio, K. 1995. Bare noun phrases, verbs, and quantification in ASL. Quantification in natural languages, Vol. 2, ed. by E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer and B. H. Partee, 603-17. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
40. Pizzuto, E., E. Cameracanna, S. Corazza, and V. Volterra 1995. Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language. Iconicity in language, ed. by R. Simone, 237-56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41. Quer, J. 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory 15, ed. by E. Georgala and J. Howell, 152-68. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
42. Rathmann, C. G. 2005. Event structure in American Sign Language, PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.
43. Schalber, K. 2006. Event visibility in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 9(1/2). 207-31.
44. Schlenker, P. 1999. Propositional attitudes and indexicality (A cross-categorial approach) PhD thesis, M.I.T.
45. Schlenker, P.. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 29-120.
46. Schlenker, P.. 2009. Donkey anaphora in French sign language (LSF). Forthcoming in Proceedings of NELS 40.
47. Schlenker, P.. 2010a. Donkey anaphora in sign language I: E-type vs. dynamic accounts. Logic, language and meaning: 17th Amsterdam colloquium, Vol. 6042 of lecture notes in computer science, ed, by M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. deJager and K. Schulz, 405-15. Berlin: Springer.
48. Schlenker, P.. 2010b. Donkey anaphora: the view from sign language (ASL and LSF). Paris: Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS; New York University.
49. Smith, C. S. 2003. Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Smith, C. S.. 2004. The domain of tense. The syntax of time, ed. by J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, 597-619. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Speas, M. 2000. Person and point of view in Navajo direct discourse complements. Papers in honor of Ken Hale, Vol. 1 of MIT working papers on endangered and less familiar languages, ed. by E. Jelinek, A. Carnie and M. A. Willie, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
52. Supalla, T. 1982. Structure and acquisition of verbs of motion and location in American Sign Language, PhD thesis, University of California at San Diego.
53. Supalla, T.. 1990. Serial verbs of motion in ASL. Theoretical issues in sign language research, Vol. I: linguistics, ed. by S. D. Fischer and P. Siple, 127-52. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
54. Valli, C., and C. Lucas 2000. Linguistics of American Sign Language: an introduction 3rd edn, Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
55. Wilbur, R. B. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. Papers from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. 354-68.
56. Zucchi, S. 2004. Monsters in the visual mode? Talk presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 10, Humboldt University, Berlin, October 13 - 15, 2005.
57. Zucchi, S.. 2009. Along the time line: tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language, Natural Language Semantics 17. 99-139.