Correction: 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 (2015) 112, 19 (5968-5973) DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1423080112);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

Volumn 112, Issue 19, 2015, Pages 5968-5973

  Strickland, Brent ^a   Geraci, Carlo ^a   Chemla, Emmanuel ^a   Schlenker, Philippe ^a   Kelepir, Meltem ^b   Pfau, Roland ^c  

^a CNRS   (France)

^b BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive biases; Language universals; Sign language; Telicity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITIVE BIAS; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; GESTURE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; MOTION; NETHERLANDS; NORMAL HUMAN; PHONETICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGN LANGUAGE; SOCIAL INTERACTION; THINKING; VISUAL STIMULATION; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ITALY; LANGUAGE; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; CUES; GESTURES; HUMANS; INTERNET; ITALY; LANGUAGE; LINEAR MODELS; LINGUISTICS; SIGN LANGUAGE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84929206966     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1600619113     Document Type: Erratum

References (45)

1. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569-1579.
2. Hickok G (2009) The functional neuroanatomy of language. Phys Life Rev 6(3): 121-143.
3. Christiansen MH, Chater N (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behav Brain Sci 31(5):489-508, discussion 509-558.
4. Gómez DM, et al. (2014) Language universals at birth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(16): 5837-5841.
5. von Fintel K, Matthewson L (2008) Universals in semantics. Linguist Rev 25(1-2): 139-201.
6. Lillo-Martin D, Klima ES (1990) Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Vol 1, Linguistics, eds Fischer SF, Siple P (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp 191-210.
7. Schlenker P (2013) Temporal and modal anaphora in sign language (ASL). Nat Lang Linguist Theory 31(1):207-234.
8. Schlenker P (2014) Iconic features. Nat Lang Semantics 22(4):299-356.
9. Schlenker P, Lamberton J, Santoro M (2013) Iconic variables. Linguistics & Philosophy 36(2):91-149.
10. Sandler W, Lillo-Martin D (2006) Sign Language and Linguistic Universals (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
11. Petitto LA, et al. (2000) Speech-like cerebral activity in profoundly deaf people processing signed languages: Implications for the neural basis of human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97(25):13961-13966.
12. Emmorey K, McCullough S, Mehta S, Grabowski TJ (2014) How sensory-motor systems impact the neural organization for language: Direct contrasts between spoken and signed language. Front Psychol 5(484):484.
13. Wilbur RB (2003) Representation of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society 39(1): 354-368.
14. Emmorey K (2014) Iconicity as structure mapping. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369(1651):20130301.
15. Krifka M (1998) The origins of telicity. Events and Grammar, ed Rothstein S (Kluwer, Dordrecht), pp 197-235.
16. Parsons T (1990) Events in the Semantics of English (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
17. Bach E (1986) The algebra of events. Linguistics & Philosophy 9(1):5-16.
18. Vendler Z (1957) Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66(2):143-160.
19. Verkuyl HJ (1972) On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects (Reidel, Dordrecht).
20. Dowty DR (1979) Word Meaning and Montague Grammar (Reidel, Dordrecht).
21. Vendler Z (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy (Cornell Univ Press, Ithaca, NY).
22. Folli R, Harley H (2006) What language says about the psychology of events. Trends Cogn Sci 10(3):91-92.
23. Comrie B (1976) Aspect (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
24. Filip H (2004) The telicity parameter revisited. Semantics and Linguistic Theory XIV: 92-109.
25. Wagner L (2003) I'll never grow up: Continuity in aspect representations. Linguistics 47(5):1051-1074.
26. Filip H (2003) Prefixes and the delimitation of events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1):55-101.
27. Malaia E, Wilbur RB (2012) Telicity expression in the visual modality. Telicity, Change, and State, eds Demonte V, McNally L (Oxford Univ Press, New York), pp 122-138.
28. Zacks JM, Kumar S, Abrams RA, Mehta R (2009) Using movement and intentions to understand human activity. Cognition 112(2):201-216.
29. Rand DG (2012) The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol 299:172-179.
30. Schalber K (2006) Event visibility in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language and Linguistics 9(1/2):207-231.
31. Sacks O (1990) Seeing voices (Harper Perennial, New York).
32. Volterra V, Porcari Li Destri G, eds (1995) Passato e Presente (Gnocchi, Napoli, Italy).
33. Bickford JA (2005) The signed languages of Eastern Europe. SIL Electronic Survey Reports (SIL International). Available at www-01.sil.org/silesr/2005/silesr2005-026.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2015.
34. Anderson L (1979) A Comparison of Some American, British, Australian and Swedish Signs: Evidence on Historical Changes in Signs and Some Family Relationships of Sign Languages. Paper presented at First International Symposium on Sign Language, Stockholm, June.
35. Fortgens C (1991) Geschiedenis: Gebarentaal en dovenonderwijs. De Nederlandse Gebarentaal, eds Schermer T, et al. (Van Tricht, Twello, The Netherlands), pp 195-225.
36. Tijseeling C (2014) 'School, Waar?' Een Onderzoek Naar de Betekenis van het Nederlandse Dovenonderwijs voor de Nederlandse Dovengemeenschap, 1790-1990. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.
37. Spelke ES, Kinzler KD (2007) Core knowledge. Dev Sci 10(1):89-96.
38. Núñez RE, Dehaene S, Pica P, Spelke E (2008) Reading between the number lines. Science 321(5894):1293-1294. author reply 1293-1294.
39. Fischer O (2011) Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. Semblance and Signification, Iconicity in Language and Literature 10, eds Michelucci P, Fischer O, Ljungberg C (Benjamins, Amsterdam), pp 55-81.
40. Kegl J (2004) ASL syntax: Research in progress and proposed research. Sign Language & Linguistics 7(2):173-206.
41. Liddell SK (2003) Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
42. Wilcox PP (2000) Metaphor in American Sign Language (Gallaudet Univ Press, Washington, DC).
43. Bosworth RG, Emmorey K (2010) Effects of iconicity and semantic relatedness on lexical access in American Sign Language. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36(6):1573-1581.
44. Travis L (2010) Inner Aspect (Springer Dordrecht, London).
45. Wilbur RB (2008) Complex predicates involving events, time, and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, ed Quer J (Signum Press, Hamburg), pp 217-250.