Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
29 - Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
from Part IV - Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- 26 Syntax Semantics
- 27 Comparative Syntax, Morphology, and “Externalization”
- 28 Syntax and Externalization
- 29 Cross-Modal Comparative Syntax
- 30 Syntax and Information Structure
- 31 Syntactic Dependency Formation in Sentence Processing
- Index
- References
Summary
Within the domains of morphosyntax and syntax, sign languages have been shown to share many interesting properties with spoken languages. At the same time, it has been demonstrated that sign languages are not a homogeneous group. Rather, they differ from each other structurally and, what is more, the attested differences often align with typological patterns that have been identified based on the study of spoken languages. In this chapter, we offer a discussion of selected syntactic phenomena that have been studied from a cross-modal perspective, drawing data from a wide variety of sign languages. We address linearization issues (e.g., constituent order), wh-questions, and various types of complex sentences, and for each of these topics we evaluate to what extent it is shaped by the affordances of the visual-spatial modality. The general picture that emerges is that sign languages – notwithstanding certain modality-specific characteristics – generally exhibit structural complexity and variation fully on a par with spoken languages. This, in turn, strongly suggests that formal models developed for spoken languages can and should be applied to sign languages.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 967 - 999Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aarons, D. 1996. Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 30: 65–106.Google Scholar
Abner, N. 2011. Wh-words that go bump in the right. In Washburn, M. B., McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., and Tomaszewicz, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2010. The P route. In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6], 225–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2016. Creole distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2): 400–418.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O., and Pfau, R.. 2010. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Benincà, P. and Munaro, N. (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O., Pfau, R., and Zeshan, U.. 2005. When a wh-word is not a wh-word: The case of Indian Sign Language. In Bhattacharya, T. (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005, 11–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alba, C. 2016. Wh-Questions in Catalan Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra , Barcelona.Google Scholar
Asada, Y. 2019. General use coordination in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 22(1): 44–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A., and van den Bogaerde, B.. 2008. Codemixing in signs and words in input to and output from children. In Plaza Pust, C. and Morales López, E. (eds.), Sign Bilingualism: Language Development, Interaction, and Maintenance in Sign Language Contact Situations, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. 1997. Sign language & language universals: The status of order & position in grammar. Sign Language Studies 91: 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C. 2021. Relative clauses: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 325–350. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C., and Donati, C.. 2009. Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Liptàk, A. (ed.), Correlatives Cross-Linguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C., and Donati, C.. 2016. Assessing lexicalism through bimodal eyes. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 48. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.29.Google Scholar
Branchini, C., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., and Geraci, C.. 2013. Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2): 157–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braze, D. 2004. Aspectual inflection, verb raising and object fronting in American Sign Language. Lingua 114: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bross, F. 2019. The Clausal Syntax of German Sign Language: A Cartographic Approach. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelli, M. 2011. Antisymmetry and Sign Languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam [Utrecht: LOT Dissertations].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., and Zucchi, S.. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies. The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2): 278–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Checchetto, A., Geraci, C., Santoro, M., and Zucchi, S.. 2015. The syntax of predicate ellipsis in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 166: 214–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, D. 2001. Word Order Variation and Acquisition in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Chesi, C. In press. Linearization (as part of core syntax). In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coerts, J. 1994. Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands and the functions of orientations. In Ahlgren, I., Bergman, B., and Brennan, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 69–88. Durham, NC: ISLA.Google Scholar
Cole, P. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, G. 1979. American Sign Language Typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Coulter, G. R. 1983. A conjoined analysis of American Sign Language relative clauses. Discourse Processes 6: 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dachkovsky, S. 2008. Facial expression as intonation in Israeli Sign Language: The case of neutral and counterfactual conditionals. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 2004, 61–82. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. 2013. ‘And’ or ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K., and Caponigro, I.. 2016. Embedding polar interrogative clauses in American Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 151–181.Google Scholar
De Quadros, R. M. 2003. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research: Selected Papers from TISLR 2000, 141–161. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
De Vos, C., and Pfau, R.. 2015. Sign language typology: The contribution of rural sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3(4): 344–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2021. Bimodal bilingual grammars. In Quer, J., Herrmann, A., and Pfau, R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 614–635. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, 2nd ed., 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013a. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Dataset]. http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013b. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Dataset]. http://wals.info/chapter/93.Google Scholar
Edwards, T., and Brentari, D.. 2020. Feeling phonology: The conventionalization of phonology in protactile communities in the United States. Language 96(4): 819–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., and Gollan, T. H.. 2008. Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(1): 43–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrara, L., and Hodge, G.. 2018. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, S. 1974. Sign language and linguistic universals. In Rohrer, T. and Ruwet, N. (eds.), Actes de Colloque Franco-Allemand de Grammaire Transformationelle. II. Etudes de Sémantique et autres, 187–204. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Reprinted 2008, Sign Language & Linguistics 11(2): 245–262.]Google Scholar
Fischer, S. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Li, C. (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, S., and Janis, W.. 1990. Verb sandwiches in American Sign Language. In Prillwitz, S. and Vollhaber, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 279–293. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Fornasiero, E. 2023. Evaluative Constructions in Italian Sign Language (LIS): A Multi-Theoretical Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. A. 1976. The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 125–148. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., and Aristodemo, V.. 2016. An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 95–150.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, K. 2021. Negation: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 266–294. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and 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): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and Kelepir, M.. 2016. Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 65–94.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J (eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K., Pfau, R., and Legeland, I.. 2021. Asymmetry and contrast: Coordination in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 101. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5872.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Coordination. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd ed., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N., and Lewontin, R. C.. 2014. The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 5, Article 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idsardi, W. J., and Raimy, E. In press. Linearization. In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janzen, T. 1995. Differentiating topic from subjects in ASL. In Aubin, M.-C. (ed.), Perspectives d’Avenir en Traduction, 57–74. Winnipeg: Presses Universitaires de Saint-Boniface.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. 2003. BSL, Auslan and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research, 47–69. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. vol. II: Complex Constructions, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelepir, M. 2021. Content interrogatives: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 232–265. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khristoforova, E. 2023. Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language: Implications for the hierarchy of person features. Sign Language & Linguistics 26(1): 64–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2012. Word order in Russian Sign Language: An extended report. Linguistics in Amsterdam 5: 1–56.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2015. Topics and topic prominence in two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2017. Linearization of weak hand holds in Russian Sign Language. Linguistics in Amsterdam 10(1): 28–59.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2019. Information Structure in Sign Languages. Evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., and Pfau, R.. 2021. Information structure: theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 591–613. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Sáfár, A., and Crasborn, O.. 2016. Towards a classification of weak hand holds. Open Linguistics 2: 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, U. 2019. Conditional clauses in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus-based study. Sign Language Studies 19(3): 309–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubuş, O. 2016. Relative Clause Constructions in Turkish Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. 2021. Discourse anaphora: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 458–479. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Laudanna, A., and Volterra, V.. 1991. Order of words, signs and gestures: A first comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics 12: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legeland, I., Hartmann, K., and Pfau, R.. 2018. Word order asymmetries in NGT coordination: The impact of information structure. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory 2: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.05.Google Scholar
Li, C., and Thompson, S.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, C. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Subject and Topic, 456–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1978. Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research, 59–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1986. Head thrust in ASL conditional sentences. Sign Language Studies 52: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2008. Focus constructions in American Sign Language and Lingua de Sinais Brasileira. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 8, 161–176. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., Koulidobrova, E., de Quadros, R. M., and Chen Pichler, D.. 2012. Bilingual language synthesis: Evidence from wh-questions in bimodal bilinguals. In Biller, A., Chung, E., and Kimball, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 302–314. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., de Quadros, R. M., and Chen Pichler, D.. 2016. The development of bimodal bilingualism: Implications for linguistic theory. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6(6): 719–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourenço, G., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2020. The syntactic structure of the clause in Brazilian Sign Language. In de Quadros, R. M. (ed.), Brazilian Sign Language Studies, 131–154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, E., and Steinbach, M.. 2022. Perspective shift across modalities. Annual Review of Linguistics 8: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantovan, L. 2015. Nominal Modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). PhD dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, K. 1997. Verb raising in American Sign Language. Lingua 103: 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, S. 2012. History of sign languages and sign language linguistics. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 909–948.Google Scholar
MacSwan, J. 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesch, J. 2001. Tactile Sign Language: Turn Taking and Questions in Signed Conversations of Deaf-Blind People. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Minoura, N. 2008. Word order in Malagasy Sign Language. Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku Ron Shu Dai (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Working Papers): 77, 47–69.Google Scholar
Morales-López, E., Reigosa-Varela, C., and Bobillo García, N.. 2011. Word order and informative function (topic and focus) in Spanish Signed Language utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 44(4): 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J., and Sutton-Spence, R.. 2014. Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology 5, Article 376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neidle, C. 2002. Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., and Lee, R. G.. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
NGC / Nederlands Gebarencentrum [Dutch Sign Center]. 2002. CDRom Basisgrammatica Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Bunnik & Amsterdam: NGC & UvA.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2006. Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Bateman, L. and Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 463–478. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Nunes, J., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2008. Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 8, 177–190. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Padden, C. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. [Published 1988 by Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, New York.]Google Scholar
Paulus, L. 2021. Der Konditionalsatz in Deutscher Gebärdensprache (DGS) und Brasilianischer Gebärdensprache (Libras) – Eine empirische soziolinguistische Studie [The Conditional Clause in German Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language – An Empirical Sociolinguistic Study]. PhD dissertation, Georg-August-University, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Perniss, P. 2007. Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petronio, K., and Lillo-Martin, D.. 1997. Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73(1): 18–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfau, R. 2016a. A featural approach to sign language negation. In Larrivée, P. and Lee, C. (eds.), Negation and Negative Polarity: Cognitive and Experimental Perspectives. 45–74. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. 2016b. Non-manuals and tones: A comparative perspective on suprasegmentals and spreading. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 11: 19–58.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., and Aboh, E. O.. 2012. On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 68: 83–104.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., and Quer, J.. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages [Cambridge Language Surveys], 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., and Steinbach, M.. 2006. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In Bateman, L. and Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 507–521. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.). 2012. Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Herrmann, A. (eds.). 2016. A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Salzmann, M., and Steinbach, M.. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 107. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.511.Google Scholar
Quer, J. 2020. The expression of negation in sign languages. In Déprez, V. and Espinal, M. T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Negation, 177–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, J. 2021. Verb agreement: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 95–121.Google Scholar
Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.). 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A., and Pfau, R.. 2023. Language prejudice and language structure: On missing and emerging conjunctions in Libras and other sign languages. In Massini-Cagliari, G., de Andrade Berlinck, R., and Rodrigues, A. (eds.), Understanding Linguistic Prejudice: Critical Approaches to Language Diversity in Brazil, 157–184. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sáfár, A., and Kimmelman, V.. 2015. Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2): 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, M. 2021. Role shift: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 351–377.Google Scholar
Sze, F. Y. B. 2008. Topic Constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Sze, F. Y. B. 2015. Is Hong Kong Sign Language a topic-prominent language? Linguistics 53(4): 809–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, G., and Lau, P.. 2012. Coordination and subordination. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 340–365.Google Scholar
Tang, G., Li, J., and He, J.. 2021. Classifiers: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 139–173.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. 1977. The lack of subordination in American Sign Language. In Friedman, L. A. (ed.), On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, 181–195. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, I. 2004. The Quest for Syntactic Dependency. Sentential Complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam [Utrecht: LOT Dissertations].Google Scholar
Volterra, V., Laudanna, A., Corazza, S., Radutzky, E., and Natale, F.. 1984. Italian Sign Language: The order of elements in the declarative sentence. In Loncke, F., Boyes-Braem, P., and Lebrun, Y. (eds.), Recent Research on European Sign Language, 19–48. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Watson, K. L. 2010. Wh-Questions in American Sign Language: Contributions of Nonmanual Marking to Structure and Meaning. MA thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2011. Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1): 148–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2016. Preference for clause order in complex sentences with adverbial clauses in American Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 36–64.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2017. Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.183.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2021. Non-manual markers: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 530–565.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B., and Patschke, C.. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 2: 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2019. Signed languages. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Key Topics, 251–274. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmann, H. 1991. Classification linguistique des langues signées nonvocalement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée: Les Langues Signées 10(1): 215–288.Google Scholar
Woll, B. 2003. Modality, universality and the similarities among sign languages: An historical perspective. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research, 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Woll, B, Sutton-Spence, R., and Elton, F.. 2001. Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2004. Interrogative constructions in sign languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language 80(1): 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2006. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U., and Palfreyman, N.. 2017. Sign language typology. In Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 178–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U., and Palfreyman, N.. 2020. Comparability of signed and spoken languages: Absolute and relative modality effects in cross-modal typology. Linguistic Typology 24(3): 527–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2007. Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 10: 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorzi, G. 2018. Coordination and Gapping in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.