Publications

Displaying 501 - 505 of 505
  • Zeshan, U., Pfau, R., & Aboh, E. (2005). When a wh-word is not a wh-word: the case of Indian sign language. In B. Tanmoy (Ed.), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 2005 (pp. 11-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Zeshan, U. (2005). Irregular negatives in sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 560-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zhou, W., & Broersma, M. (2014). Perception of birth language tone contrasts by adopted Chinese children. In C. Gussenhoven, Y. Chen, & D. Dediu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Language (pp. 63-66).

    Abstract

    The present study investigates how long after adoption adoptees forget the phonology of their birth language. Chinese children who were adopted by Dutch families were tested on the perception of birth language tone contrasts before, during, and after perceptual training. Experiment 1 investigated Cantonese tone 2 (High-Rising) and tone 5 (Low-Rising), and Experiment 2 investigated Mandarin tone 2 (High-Rising) and tone 3 (Low-Dipping). In both experiments, participants were adoptees and non-adopted Dutch controls. Results of both experiments show that the tone contrasts were very difficult to perceive for the adoptees, and that adoptees were not better at perceiving the tone contrasts than their non-adopted Dutch peers, before or after training. This demonstrates that forgetting took place relatively soon after adoption, and that the re-exposure that the adoptees were presented with did not lead to an improvement greater than that of the Dutch control participants. Thus, the findings confirm what has been anecdotally reported by adoptees and their parents, but what had not been empirically tested before, namely that birth language forgetting occurs very soon after adoption
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2012). Classifiers. In R. Pfau, M. Steinbach, & B. Woll (Eds.), Sign Language: an International Handbook (pp. 158-186). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Abstract

    Classifiers (currently also called 'depicting handshapes'), are observed in almost all signed languages studied to date and form a well-researched topic in sign language linguistics. Yet, these elements are still subject to much debate with respect to a variety of matters. Several different categories of classifiers have been posited on the basis of their semantics and the linguistic context in which they occur. The function(s) of classifiers are not fully clear yet. Similarly, there are differing opinions regarding their structure and the structure of the signs in which they appear. Partly as a result of comparison to classifiers in spoken languages, the term 'classifier' itself is under debate. In contrast to these disagreements, most studies on the acquisition of classifier constructions seem to consent that these are difficult to master for Deaf children. This article presents and discusses all these issues from the viewpoint that classifiers are linguistic elements.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2014). Meaning at the feature level in sign languages. The case of name signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In R. Kager (Ed.), Where the Principles Fail. A Festschrift for Wim Zonneveld on the occasion of his 64th birthday (pp. 241-251). Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.

Share this page