Cover not available

Commentary published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 20:2 (2017) ► pp.270–278

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Papers from the Sign Linguistics Underground

Commentary on Bos (1998)

 | Boğaziçi University, Istanbul
Published online: 26 March 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00004.gok
References (29)
References
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20(4). 513–553.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 221. 743–810. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen F. 1998. An analysis of main verb and auxiliary agreement in SLN within the theory of Conceptual Semantics (Jackendoff 1990). Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Gallaudet University, Washington D.C., 12–15 November 1998 [Published 2017 in Sign Language & Linguistics, this volume].
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2013. The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grose, Donovan, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Katharina Schalber. 2007. Events and telicity in classifier predicates: A reanalysis of body part classifier predicates in ASL. Lingua 117(7). 1258–1284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4). 1033–1088. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Julia Krebs, Ronnie B. Wilbur & Dietmar Roehm. 2017. Two agreement markers in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Sign Language & Linguistics 20(1). 27–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Edward S. Klima. 1990. Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research. Vol.1: Linguistics, 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2012. Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 1995. Explaining backwards verbs in ISL: Syntactic-semantic interaction. In Heleen Bos & Trude Schermer (eds.), Current trends in sign language research. Proceedings of the Fifth European Congress on Sign Language Research, 105–119. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998a. Thematic structure and verb agreement in Israeli Sign Language. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem PhD dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert G. Lee. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Prospects and challenges for a clitic analysis of (A)SL agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 371(3–4), 173–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 1983[1988]. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation. [Published 1988 in Outstanding dissertations in linguistics, New York: Garland Publishing].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quadros, Ronice M. de & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2010. Clause structure. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 225–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian C. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau. 2007. Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation. Comparative studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4). 619–666. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quadros, Ronice M. de & Josep Quer. 2008. Back to back(wards) and moving on: On agreement, auxiliaries and verb classes in sign languages. In Ronice M. de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: Spinning and unravelling the past, present and future. Forty-five papers and three posters from the 9th Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research Conference, Florianópolis, Brazil, December 2006. Petrópolis: Editora Arara Azul. [Available at: [URL]].
Steinbach, Markus. 2011. What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement? Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4). 209–221.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Edgar Onea. 2015. A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. Journal of Semantics 33(3). 409–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. B. 2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 8, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gökgöz, Kadir & Hande Sevgi
2020. Aspects of clause structure and morphology in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue