Cover not available

Review published In: Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2003) ► pp.277–284

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Book review

Els Van der Kooij. Phonological Categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. The Role of Phonetic Implementation and Iconicity. LOT, 2002. € 18.20335 pp. ISBN 9076864160

Reviewed by
 | Ghent University
Published online: 10 June 2004
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.6.2.11dem
References (18)
References
Battistella, E. (1990). Markedness: the evaluative superstructure of language. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. (1998). SignPhon software (Version 2.22). Leiden: <[URL]>
(2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crasborn, O. & E. Van der Kooij. (1997). “Relative orientation in sign language phonology.” In J. Coerts & H. D. Hoop (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997, pp. 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, L. (1976). Phonology of a soundless language: phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frishberg, N. & B. Gough. (1973). “Morphology in American Sign Language.” Working paper, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, CA (reprinted in: Sign Language & Linguistics 2000, 31:103–131).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liddell, S. & R. Johnson. (1989). “American Sign Language: the phonological base.” Sign Language Studies 641:195–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1990). “On the segmental representation of transitional and bidirectional movements in ASL phonology.” In S. Fischer & P. Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: linguistics, pp. 67–80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure. An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uyechi, L. (1996). The geometry of visual phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, H. (1993). “Units in the analysis of signs.” Phonology 101: 209–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Kooij, E. (2002). Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. (1993). “Syllables and segments: hold the movement and move the holds!” In G. Coulter (ed.), Phonetics and phonology, vol. 3: Current issues in ASL phonology, pp. 135–168. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue