Cover not available

Abstract published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2024) ► pp.258–269

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required
Dissertation abstract

Phonological contrast and feature inventories in sign language

A study on French Sign Language (LSF)

 | Université Paris Cité & Institut Jean Nicod
Published online: 15 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.00090.mer
Article outline
  • Context of the study
  • Chapter 2 — What [web] reveals about contrast and feature inventory in (French) Sign Language
  • Chapter 3 — Phonological representation of 2-handed signs in LSF: Reconsidering absolute orientation in the phonological models of sign language?
  • Chapter 4 — Measuring sign complexity: Comparing a model-driven and an error-driven approach
  • Chapter 5 — Categorical perception in French Sign Language
  • General conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
References (23)
References
Baker, Stephanie A., William J. Idsardi, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff & Laura-Ann Petitto. 2005. The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition 33(5). 887–904. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 1978. Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring. MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., Gaurav Mathur, Karen A. Miranda & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2010. Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72(3). 747–762. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boutora, Leila. 2008. Fondements historiques et implications théoriques d’une phonologie des langues des signes-Etude de la perception catégorielle des configurations manuelles en LSF et réflexion sur la transcription des langues des signes. Université Paris VIII Vincennes-Saint Denis PhD Thesis.
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49(3–4). 155–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2(1). 225–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Els van der Kooij. 1997. Relative orientation in sign language phonology. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997. 37–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Rain Bosworth & Tanya Kraljic. 2009. Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. Journal of Memory and Language 61(3). 398–411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen, Stephen McCullough & Diane Brentari. 2003. Categorical perception in American Sign Language. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(1). 21–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finger, Holger, Caspar Goeke, Dorena Diekamp, Kai Standvoß & Peter König. 2017. LabVanced: a unified JavaScript framework for online studies. In 2017 International Conference on Computational Social Science IC2S2 (Cologne).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Robert E. Johnson. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64(1). 195–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mertz, Justine. 2020. Représentation phonologique des signes à deux mains en LSF: faut-il reconsidérer l’orientation absolue dans les modèles phonologiques des langues des signes? In Christophe Benzitoun, Chloé Braud, Laurine Huber et al. (eds.), 6e conférence conjointe Journées d’Études sur la Parole (JEP, 31e édition), Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN, 27e édition), Rencontre des Étudiants Chercheurs en Informatique pour le Traitement Automatique des Langues (RÉCITAL, 22e édition), 424–432. ATALA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mertz, Justine, Chiara Annucci, Valentina Aristodemo, Beatrice Giustolisi, Doriane Gras, Giuseppina Turco, Carlo Geraci & Caterina Donati. 2022. Measuring sign complexity: Comparing a model-driven and an error-driven approach. Laboratory Phonology 24(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mertz, Justine & Carlo Geraci. 2024. Modelling contrast and feature inventory: The nature of [web] in French Sign Language. Phonology 401. 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morford, Jill P., Angus B. Grieve-Smith, James MacFarlane, Joshua Staley & Gabriel Waters. 2008. Effects of language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition 109(1). 41–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1982. Task specificity in language learning? Evidence from speech perception and American Sign Language. In Eric Wanner & Lila R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 450–486. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Gerardo & Gary Morgan. 2015. Phonological development in hearing learners of a sign language: The influence of phonological parameters, sign complexity, and iconicity. Language Learning 65(3). 660–688. 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
Tartter, Vivien C. & Susan D. Fischer. 1982. Perceiving minimal distinctions in ASL under normal and point-light display conditions. Perception & Psychophysics 32(4). 327–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uyechi, Linda. 1994. Local and global signing space in American Sign Language. NELS 24(2).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 Kooij, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Leiden: University of Leiden PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue