Cover not available

Review published In: Identifying sentences in signed languages
Edited by Onno A. Crasborn
[Sign Language & Linguistics 10:2] 2007
► pp. 201212

Get fulltext from our e-platform
References (16)
Selected references
Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, Andre Meinunger & Chris Wilder (eds). 2000. The syntax of relative clauses. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basilico, David. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 721, 498–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Caterina Donati. In press. Italian Sign Language relatives: a contribution to the typology of relativization strategies. To appear in A. Liptak (ed.), Correlatives: theory and typology (North Holland Linguistic series 681). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Three theories of relative clauses. The syntax and semantics of nominal modification. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Sandro Zucchi. 2004. Why is SpecCP on the right in sign languages? Paper presented at GLOW 2004, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 241, 945–975. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina. 2000. La sintassi della comparazione. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. On wh-head-movement. In L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds.), Wh-movement on the move, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander & Fred Landman. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 61, 125–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin E. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 741, 245–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Ben 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
Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open the cleft. In K. Kusumoto (ed.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 337–351. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 81, 147–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Saral, Burcu & Meltem Kelepir
2020. The universal quantifier ‘all’ in Turkish Sign Language. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215],  pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
MANTOVAN, LARA, CARLO GERACI & ANNA CARDINALETTI
2019. On the cardinal system in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Journal of Linguistics 55:4  pp. 795 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