2018
DOI: 10.1353/sls.2018.0017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Iconic Patterns in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, most studies on the emergence of phonology and the lexicon in micro-community sign languages are based on picture elicitations instead of corpus data with robust frequency information (e.g. Israel 2009;Israel & Sandler 2009;Sandler et al 2011;Richie et al 2014;Morgan 2015;Horton 2018;Hou 2018;Reed 2019;Hartzell et al 2019). Variation as measured in this study can be applied to different kinds of data, ideally drawing on both elicited and spontaneous corpus data from different languages or even home sign data that can be compared directly.…”
Section: Variation and Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Indeed, most studies on the emergence of phonology and the lexicon in micro-community sign languages are based on picture elicitations instead of corpus data with robust frequency information (e.g. Israel 2009;Israel & Sandler 2009;Sandler et al 2011;Richie et al 2014;Morgan 2015;Horton 2018;Hou 2018;Reed 2019;Hartzell et al 2019). Variation as measured in this study can be applied to different kinds of data, ideally drawing on both elicited and spontaneous corpus data from different languages or even home sign data that can be compared directly.…”
Section: Variation and Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research on patterned iconicity suggests that specific types of objects tend to device specific iconic strategies, i.e. signs for tools often relate to handling or manipulating the tool while signs for food items are often linked to size, shape and manipulation (Padden et al 2013;Hwang et al 2017;Hou 2018). In line with this, sign variants elicited for the items camera and pig show different strategies: most iconic motivations elicited for camera relate to holding, handling, or manipulating a video camera whereas iconic motivations in pig map to different aspects around a pig, namely handling/manipulating (killing), embodiment of the animal (feeding), and appearance.…”
Section: High Variation and Synonymsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(c) Entity-This strategy is referred as the object strategy by other researchers (Padden et al 2013;Kimmelman et al 2018;Hou 2018). The hand only shows features of object and does not perform any action with this strategy.…”
Section: A Two-parts Sign ( Adasl) One-part (Gsl) One-part (Urban Gesturer)mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Signs were compared at the level of their sign gloss, similar to previous studies, including Hou (2018), Richie et al (2014), andMudd et al (2020;. Many of these studies use a gloss, "conceptual component" (Richie et al 2014) or "iconic prototype" (Meir et al 2012) to compare signs because there seems to be significant tolerance for variation in the articulation of signs.…”
Section: Chop Exist_small Spicymentioning
confidence: 99%