Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:29:46.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Noun-Verb Distinction in Established and Emergent Sign Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Natasha Abner,
Molly Flaherty,
Katelyn Stangl,
Marie Coppola,
Diane Brentari and
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Natasha Abner*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Molly Flaherty*
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
Katelyn Stangl*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Marie Coppola*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Diane Brentari*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Susan Goldin-Meadow*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Abner, Linguistics Department, 440 Lorch Hall, University of Michigan, 611 Tappan Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 4810 [nabner@umich.edu]
[mflaher1@swarthmore.edu]
[kmstangl@gmail.com]
[marie.coppola@uconn.edu]
[dbrentari@uchicago.edu]
[sgm@uchicago.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a number of signed languages, the distinction between nouns and verbs is evident in the morphophonology of the signs themselves. Here we use a novel elicitation paradigm to investigate the systematicity, emergence, and development of the noun-verb distinction (qua objects vs. actions) in an established sign language, American Sign Language (ASL), an emerging sign language, Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), and in the precursor to NSL, Nicaraguan homesigns. We show that a distinction between nouns and verbs is marked (by utterance position and movement size) and thus present in all groups—even homesigners, who have invented their systems without a conventional language model. However, there is also evidence of emerging crosslinguistic variation in whether a base hand is used to mark the noun-verb contrast. Finally, variation in how movement repetition and base hand are used across Nicaraguan groups offers insight into the pressures that influence the development of a linguistic system. Specifically, early signers of NSL use movement repetition and base hand in ways similar to homesigners but different from signers who entered the NSL community more recently, suggesting that intergenerational transmission to new learners (not just sharing a language with a community) plays a key role in the development of these devices. These results bear not only on the importance of the noun-verb distinction in human communication, but also on how this distinction emerges and develops in a new (sign) language.

Keywords

sign languagehomesignNicaraguan Sign LanguageAmerican Sign Languagephonologymorphologylexical categorieslanguage evolution

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , June 2019, pp. 230 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to the Deaf individuals in the United States and Nicaragua who shared their time and languages with us; without them, this work would not have been possible. This research was supported by NIH R01 DC00491 from the NIDCD and 1654154 from the NSF to Susan Goldin-Meadow, NSF BCS 0547554 to Diane Brentari and NSF BCS1227908 to Diane Brentari and Marie Coppola, an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship as well as a Newton International Fellowship from the Royal Society of the UK and the British Academy to Molly Flaherty, and by the Center for Gesture, Sign, and Language at the University of Chicago. We thank Emily Miiller, Carolyn Mylander, Mark Resnick, and Markie Theophile for their assistance with the project, as well as our many colleagues who have discussed this research with us. We are also grateful to audiences at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research and Formal and Experimental Approaches to Sign Language Linguistics, as well as to the editors of Language and two anonymous referees for their helpful feedback and discussion. Any remaining errors are our own.

References

Abner, Natasha. 2017. What you see is what you get.get: Surface transparency and ambiguity of nominalizing reduplication in American Sign Language. Syntax 20(4). 317-52. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit; and Sandler, Wendy. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2). 301-44. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2010. Nominals don't provide criteria of identity. Nominalizations across languages and frameworks (Interface explorations), ed. by Rathert, Monika and Alexiadou, Artemis, 9–24. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Bat-El, Outi, Brentari, Diane, Dupuis, Amanda; and Vaknin-Nusbaum, Vered. 2016. The double identity of linguistic doubling: One language faculty, two channels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48). 13702-7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1613749113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2004. The grammar machine. The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 5), ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 288–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Branchini, Chiara, Fenlon, Jordan, Horton, Laura; and Tang, Gladys. 2015. Typology in sign languages: Can it be predictive? Chicago Linguistic Society 51. 47–65.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Coppola, Marie, Jung, Ashley; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2013. Acquiring word class distinctions in American Sign Language: Evidence from handshape. Language Learning and Development 9(2). 130-50. DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2012.679540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brentari, Diane, Coppola, Marie, Mazzoni, Laura; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2012. When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30. 1–31. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-011-9145-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrigan, Emily M., and Coppola, Marie. 2017. Successful communication does not drive language development: Evidence from adult homesign. Cognition 158. 10–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, Deborah. 2001. Word order variation and acquisition in American Sign Language. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie. 2002. The emergence of grammatical categories in home sign: Evidence from family-based gesture systems in Nicaragua. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester dissertation.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, and Newport, Elissa L.. 2005. Grammatical subjects in home sign: Abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(52). 19249-53. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0509306102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coppola, Marie, and Senghas, Ann. 2010. Deixis in an emerging sign language. 2010. Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. by Brentari, Diane, 543-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, and So, Wing Chee. 2005. Abstract and object-anchored deixis: Pointing and spatial layout in adult homesign systems in Nicaragua. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 29. 144-55.Google Scholar
Coppola, Marie, Spaepen, Elizabet; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2013. Communicating about quantity without a language model: Number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology 67. 1–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.05.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 9. 469-80. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000693.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1975. Influences on word-order change in American Sign Language. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 2009. Sign language field methods: Approaches, techniques, and concerns. Taiwan Sign Language and beyond, ed. by Tai, James H.-Y. and Tsay, Jane, 1–19. Chia-Yi: The Taiwan Institute for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D., and Janis, Wynne. 1992. License to derive: Resolving conflicts between syntax and morphology in ASL. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Flaherty, Molly. 2014. The emergence of argument structural devices in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Flaherty, Molly, Hunsicker, Dea; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2016. The seeds of Nicaraguan sign language are not found in gesture. Paper presented at the 41st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Franklin, Amy, Giannakidou, Anastasia; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2011. Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system. Cognition 118. 398–416. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1975. Arbitrariness and iconicity: Historical change in American Sign Language. Language 51(3). 696–719. DOI: 10.2307/412894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Hickey, Tina, Lee, Aldrin, Lim, Eunice, Luchkina, Elena; and Gibson, Edward. 2015. Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition 136. 215-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geach, Peter Thomas. 1962. Reference and generality: An examination of some medieval and modern theories. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gershkoff-Stowe, Lisa, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2002. Is there a natural order for expressing semantic relations? Cognitive Psychology 45. 375–412. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00502-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2003. The resilience of language. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 27. 1–25.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2004. Lexical development without a language model. Weaving a lexicon, ed. by Hall, Geoffrey and Waxman, Sandra, 225-56. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2015. The impact of time on predicate forms in the manual modality: Signers, homesigners, and silent gesturers. Topics in Cognitive Science 7. 169-84. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Brentari, Diane, Coppola, Marie, Horton, Laura; and Senghas, Ann. 2015. Watching language grow in the manual modality: Nominals, predicates, and handshapes. Cognition 136. 381-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Butcher, Cynthia, Mylander, Carolyn; and Dodge, Mark. 1994. Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What's in a name? Cognitive Psychology 27. 259–319. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1994.1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, McNeill, David; and Singleton, Jenny. 1996. Silence is liberating: Removing the handcuffs on grammatical expression in the manual modality. Psychological Review 103. 34–55. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1983. Gestural communication in deaf children: Noneffect of parental input on language development. Science 221. 372-74. DOI: 10.1126/science.6867713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1984a. The development of morphology without a conventional language model. Chicago Linguistic Society 20. 117-33.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1984b. Gestural communication in deaf children: The effects and noneffects of parental input on early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 49. 1–151. DOI: 10.2307/1165838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, and Mylander, Carolyn. 1998. Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 391. 279-81. DOI: 10.1038/34646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Mylander, Carolyn; and Butcher, Cynthia. 1995. The resilience of combinatorial structure at the word level: Morphology in self-styled gesture systems. Cognition 56. 195–262. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00662-I.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Mylander, Carolyn; and Franklin, Amy. 2007. How children make language out of gesture: Morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children. Cognitive Psychology 55. 87–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.08.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, So, Wing chee, Özyürek, Asli; and Mylander, Carolyn. 2008. The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(27). 9163-68. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0710060105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groce, Nora Ellen. 1985. Everyone here spoke sign language: Hereditary deafness on Martha's Vineyard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Kumar Anil. 1980. The logic of common nouns: An investigation in quantified modal logic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew L., Mayberry, Rachel I.; and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2013. Cognitive constraints on constituent order: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Cognition 129. 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haviland, John B. 2013. The emerging grammar of nouns in a first generation sign language: Specification, iconicity, and syntax. Gesture 13(3).309 –53. DOI: 10.1075/gest.13.3.04hav.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Bernadet. 2008. Jordanian Sign Language: Aspects of grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Sign Language & Linguistics 12. 101-10. DOI: 10.1075/sll.12.1.06hen.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203. 88–96. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoijer, Harry. 1942. Phonetic and phonemic change in the Athapaskan languages. Language 18(3). 218-20. DOI: 10.2307/409555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunger, Barbara. 2006. Noun/verb pairs in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 9. 71–94. DOI: 10.1075/sll.9.1.06hun.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsicker, Dea, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2012. Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: Building nominal constituents in homesign. Language 88(4). 732-63. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsicker, Dea, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2013. How handshape type can distinguish between nouns and verbs in homesign. Gesture 13(3). 354-76. DOI: 10.1075/gest.13.3.05hun.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Zoll, Cheryl. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry, and Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. Modality and structure in signed and spoken language, ed. by Meier, Richard, Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David, 199–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2001. Nouns and verbs in Australian Sign Language: An open and shut case? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 6. 235-57. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/6.4.235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8. 1–31. DOI: 10.1075/livy.8.01kay.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegl, Judy, and Schley, Sara. 1986. When is a classifier no longer a classifier? Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 425-41. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1881.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2009. Parts of speech in Russian Sign Language: The role of iconicity and economy. Sign Language & Linguistics 12. 161-86. DOI: 10.1075/sll.12.2.03kim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim, Sáfár, Anna; and Crasborn, Onno. 2016. Towards a classification of weak hand holds. Open Linguistics 2. 211-34. DOI: 10.1515/opli-2016-0010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Karsten, and Matthewson, Lisa. 2009. The lexical category debate in Salish and its relevance for Tagalog. Theoretical Linguistics 35. 125-47. DOI: 10.1515/THLI.2009.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia (ed.) 2003. Twice as meaningful: Reduplication in pidgins, creoles and other contact languages. (Westminster creolistics 8.) London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia, and LaCharité, Darlene. 2003. The meanings of ‘more of the same’: Iconicity in reduplication and the evidence of substrate transfer in the genesis of Caribbean Creole languages. In Kouwenberg, 7–18.Google Scholar
Kubus, Okan. 2008. An analysis of Turkish Sign Language (TİD) phonology and morphology. Ankara: Middle East Technical University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Kusters, Annelies, Meulder, Maartje De; and O'Brien, Dai (eds.) 2017. Innovation in deaf studies: The role of deaf scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Launer, Patricia. 1982. ‘A plane’ is not ‘to fly’. New York: CUNY dissertation.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 415-44. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malaia, Evie, Borneman, Joshua D.; and Wilbur, Ronnie B.. 2016. Assessment of information content in visual signal: Analysis of optical flow fractal complexity. Visual Cognition 24. 246-51. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2016.1225142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4. 201.–25. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss2/14.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Kazumi. 1997. Verb raising in American Sign Language. Lingua 103. 127-49. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00015-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Lifshitz, Adi, Ilkbasaran, Deniz; and Padden, Carol. 2010. The interaction of animacy and word order in human languages: A study of strategies in a novel communication task. Proceedings of EVOLANG 8. 455-56.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Sandler, Wendy, Padden, Carol; and Aronoff, Mark. 2010. Emerging sign languages. Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education, vol. 2, ed. by Marschark, Marc and Spencer, Patricia, 267-80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin; and Lee, Robert G.. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1990. Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14. 11–28. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa L., and Supalla, Ted. 2000. Sign language research at the millennium. The signs of language revisited: An anthology in honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, ed. by Emmorey, Karen and Lane, Harlan, 103-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nyst, Victoria. 2012. Shared sign languages. Sign language, ed. by Pfau, Roland, Steinbach, Markus, and Woll, Bencie, 552-74. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Özçalışkan, Şeyda, Ché, Lucero; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2016. Does language shape silent gesture? Cognition 148. 10–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.12.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, Meir, Irit, Aronoff, Mark; and Sandler, Wendy. 2010. The grammar of space in two new sign languages. Sign languages: A Cambridge language survey, ed. by Brentari, Diane, 570-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol, and Perlmutter, David. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 335-75. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland, and Zeshan, Ulrike. 2016. Positive signs: How sign language typology benefits deaf communities and linguistic theory. Linguistic Typology 20. 547-59. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2016-0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena, and Corraza, Serena. 1996. Noun morphology in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 98. 169-96. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(95)00037-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polich, Laura. 2005. The emergence of the deaf community in Nicaragua: ‘With sign language you can learn so much’. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Pott, August F. 1862. Doppelung (Reduplikation, Germination): Als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache, beleuchtet aus Sprachen aller Welttheile. Lemgo: Meyer.Google Scholar
Pustet, Regina. 2003. Copulas: Universals in the categorization of the lexicon. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safar, Josefina, and Chan, Rodrigo Petatillo. 2020. Strategies of noun-verb distinction in Yucatec Maya Sign Language. Emerging sign languages of the Americas, ed. by Guen, Olivier Le, Safar, Josefina, and Coppola, Marie. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, to appear.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2006. Phonology, phonetics and the nondominant hand. Laboratory phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence, ed. by Louis Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, and Best, Catherine, 185–212. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt Brace and company.Google Scholar
Schreurs, Linda. 2006. The distinction between formally and semantically related noun-verb pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam master's thesis.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann. 1995. Children's contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Senghas, Ann. 2003. Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognitive Development 18. 511-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Coppola, Marie, Newport, Elissa L.; and Supalla, Ted. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language: The emergence of grammatical devices. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 21. 550-61.Google Scholar
Senghas, Richard J., Senghas, Ann; and Pyers, Jennie E.. 2005. The emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language: Questions of development, acquisition, and evolution. Biology and knowledge revisited: From neurogenesis to psychogenesis, ed. by Parker, Sue Taylor, Langer, Jonas, and Milbrath, Constance, 287–306. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shaw, Emily, and Delaporte, Yves. 2010. New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 11. 158–204. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2010.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical category and phonological contrast. PETL 6: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology, ed. by Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe, and Wikely, Wolf, 61–72. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Snedeker, Jesse, Geren, Joy; and Shafto, Carissa L.. 2007. Starting over: International adoption as a natural experiment in language development. Psychological Science 18. 79–87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01852.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speas, Margaret. 1985. Navajo prefixes and word structure typology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 6. 86–111.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication system of the American deaf. (Studies in linguistics occasional papers 8.) Buffalo: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William, Casterline, Dorothy; and Croneberg, Carl. 1965. A dictionary of American Sign Language on linguistic principles. Washington, DC: Gallaudet College Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted, and Clark, Patricia. 2015. Sign language archeology: Understanding the historical roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted, and Newport, Elissa. 1978. How many seats in a chair? The derivation of nouns and verbs in American Sign Language. Understanding language through sign language research, ed. by Siple, Patricia, 91–132. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted, Newport, Elissa, Singleton, Jenny, Supalla, Samuel, Coulter, Geoffrey; and Metlay, D.. 1995. An overview of the test battery for American Sign Language morphology and syntax. Burtonsville, MD: Linstok.Google Scholar
Tkachman, Oksana, and Sandler, Wendy. 2013. The noun-verb distinction in two young sign languages. Gesture 13(3). 253-86. DOI: 10.1075/gest.13.3.02tka.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 2017. Lexical, functional, crossover, multifunctional categories. Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 2nd edn., ed. by Cohen, Henri and Lefebvre, Claire, 439-69. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Voghel, Amélie. 2005. Phonologically identical noun-verb pairs in Quebec Sign Language (LSQ): Form and context. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 68–75. Online: https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6186.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 2003. Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society 39. 354-68.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2000. Sign language in Indo-Pakistan: A description of a signed language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike, and Vos, Connie de. 2012. Sign languages in village communities: Anthropological and linguistic insights. (Sign language typology 4.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, and Nijmegen: Ishara.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Abner et al. supplementary material

Abner et al. supplementary material
Download Abner et al. supplementary material(File)
File 668.7 KB