Cover not available

Article published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 17:1 (2014) ► pp.5681

Get fulltext from our e-platform
References (59)
Altmann, Gabriel. 1980. Prolegomena to Menzerath’s law. Glottometrika 21. 1-10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2008. Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(4). 495-527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Jason M. Kahn & Giulia C. Pancani. 2012. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 19(3). 505-512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1). 31-56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen G., Anne H. Anderson, Catherine Sotillo, Matthew Aylett, Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon & Alison Newlands. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 421. 1-22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen G. & Matthew Aylett. 2005. Referential form, duration, and modelling the listener in spoken dialogue. In John Trueswell & Michael Tanenhaus (eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions, 173-191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Jason Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 601. 92-111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, Susan & Herb Clark. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 22(6). 1482-1493.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. Modality differences in sign language phonology and morphophonemics. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy A. Cormier & David G. Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 35-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Carolina Gonzalez, Amanda Seidl & Ronnie B. Wilbur. 2011. Sensitivity to visual prosodic cues in signers and nonsigners. Language and Speech 54(1). 49-72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herb. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 121. 335-359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herb & Diane Wilkes-Gibbs. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 221. 1-39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in sign language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Ruiter, Jan P., Adrian Bangerter & Paula Dings. 2012. The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: investigating the trade-off hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science 4(2). 232-248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Natasha Warner. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants [Editorial]. Journal of Phonetics 391. 253-260. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenk, August & Gertraud Fenk-Oczlon. 1993. Menzerath’s law and the constant flow of linguistic information. In Reinhard Köhler & Burghard Rieger (eds.), Contributions to quantitative linguistics, 11-31. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 431-448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Learning and Motivation 491. 209-246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech 31(4). 307-319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. & Jonathan Housum. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26(5). 489-504. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galati, Alexia & Susan Brennan. 2010. Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 621. 35-51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gee, James & Wendy Goodhart. 1988. American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language. In Michael Strong (ed.), Language learning and deafness, 49-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerwing, Jennifer & Janet Bavelas. 2004. Linguistic influences on gesture’s form. Gesture 41. 157-195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 691. 274-307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoetjes, Marieke, Ruud Koolen, Martijn Goudbeek, Emiel Krahmer & Marc Swerts. 2011. GREEBLES Greeble greeb. On reduction in speech and gesture in repeated references. In Laura Carlson, Christoph Hoelscher & Thomas F. Shipley (eds.), 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 3250-3255. Boston: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, Judith & Katie Wilkin. 2009. Communicating common ground: how mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(2). 267-289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, Tim Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1). 23-62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, Tim Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. Language processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIREs: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323-335. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Robert E. & Scott K. Liddell. 2010. Toward a phonetic representation of signs: sequentiality and contrast. Sign Language Studies 11(2). 241-274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelly, Spencer D., Sarah M. Manning & Sabrian Rodak. 2008. Gesture gives a hand to language and learning: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology and education. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4). 569-588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1980. Gesture and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In Mary R. Key (ed.), Nonverbal communication and language, 207-227. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koolen, Ruud, Albert Gatt, Martijn Goudbeek & Emiel Krahmer. 2011. Factors causing overspecification in definite descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics 43(13). 3231-3250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krahmer, Emiel & Marc Swerts. 2007. The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language 571. 396-414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, Tuan Q. & Duane G. Watson. 2010. Repetition is easy: why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory and Cognition 38(8). 1137-1146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leuninger, Helen, Annette Hohenberger, Eva Waleschkowski, Elke Menges & Daniela Happ. 2004. The impact of modality on language production: Evidence from slips of the tongue and hand. In Thomas Pechmann & Christopher Habel (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, 219-277. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: the phonological base. Sign Language Studies 641. 195-277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieberman, Philip. 1963. Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech 6(3). 172-187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaning variation: a sketch of the H and H theory. In William Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403-439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauk, Claude E., Björn Lindblom & Richard P. Meier. 2008. Undershoot of ASL locations in fast signing. In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time. Selected papers from TISLR 8, 3-24. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind. What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Kevin, Erin Wilkinson & Terry Janzen. 2011. ASL sign lowering as undershoot: a corpus study. Laboratory Phonology 2(2). 403-422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuel, Arthur G. & Mateusz Troicki. 1998. Articulation quality is inversely related to redundancy when children or adults have verbal control. Journal of Memory and Language 39(2). 175-194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, David McKee, Rachel McKee, Sara Pivac, Trevor Johnston & Della Goswell. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 211. 193-231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude. 1948. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27(4). 623-656. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Singleton, Jenny L., Jill P. Morford & Susan Goldin-Meadow. 1993. Once is not enough: standards of well-formedness in manual communication created over three different timespans. Language 691. 683-715. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 2005. Sign language structure: an outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 10(1). 3-37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 2008. Sign language archeology: integrating historical linguistics with fieldwork on young sign languages. In: Ronice Müller de Quadros (ed.), Sign languages: spinning and unraveling 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]].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyrone, Martha E. & Claude E. Mauk. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 381. 317-328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Deemter, Kees, Albert Gatt, Ielka van der Sluis & Richard Power. 2012. Generation of referring expressions: Assessing the incremental algorithm. Cognitive Science 36(5). 799-836. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2). 209-241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van der Sluis, Ielka & Emiel Krahmer. 2007. Generating multimodal referring expressions. Discourse Processes 44(3). 145-174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann & Han Sloetjes. 2006. ELAN: a professional framework for multimodality research. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa, Italy, 24–26 May 2006.
Zipf, George K. 1936. The psychobiology of language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Stamp, Rose, Svetlana Dachkovsky, Hagit Hel-Or, David Cohn & Wendy Sandler
2024. A kinematic study of phonetic reduction in a young sign language. Journal of Phonetics 104  pp. 101311 ff. DOI logo
TURNBULL, RORY
2023. The Effect of Usage Predictability on Phonetic and Phonological Variation. In The Handbook of Usage‐Based Linguistics,  pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
SEHYR, ZED SEVCIKOVA, BRENDA NICODEMUS, JENNIFER PETRICH & KAREN EMMOREY
2018. Referring strategies in American Sign Language and English (with co-speech gesture): The role of modality in referring to non-nameable objects. Applied Psycholinguistics 39:5  pp. 961 ff. DOI logo
Klassen, Jeffrey & Michael Wagner
2017. Prosodic prominence shifts are anaphoric. Journal of Memory and Language 92  pp. 305 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