Abstract published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2019) ► pp.118128
References (13)
References
Battison, Robin. 1974. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 51. 5–19.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goeke, Amber. 2006. Variation in American Sign Language: Articulator deletion in two-handed signs. Unpublished MA thesis.Google Scholar
Lepic, Ryan, Carl Börstell, Gal Belsitzman & Wendy Sandler. 2016. Taking meaning in hand: iconic motivations in two-handed signs. Sign Language & Linguistics 19(1). 37–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott & Robert Johnson. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 81. 445–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paligot, Aurore, Els van der Kooij, Onno Crasborn & Richard Bank. 2016. Weak drop in context. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research , Melbourne, Australia.
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Bencie Woll. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2). 209–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. On the other hand. Lingua 98(1). 121–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Kooij, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 1974. Implicational variation in American Sign Language: Negative incorporation. Sign Language Studies 51. 20–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar