Cover not available
Review published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 6:2 (2003) ► pp.277–284
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
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
Brennan, M. (1990). Word formation in British Sign Language. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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
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
Fernald, T. B. & D. J. Napoli. (2000). “Exploitation of morphological possibilities in signed languages: Comparison of American Sign Language with English.” Sign Language & Linguistics 31:3–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. (1976). Phonology of a soundless language: phonological structure of the American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.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
Liddell, S. & R. Johnson. (1989). “American Sign Language: the phonological base.” Sign Language Studies 641:195–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, U. C. Berkeley.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
Sandler, W. (1989). Phonological representation of the sign: linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle 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
Uyechi, L. (1996). The geometry of visual phonology. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van der Hulst, H. (1993). “Units in the analysis of signs.” Phonology 101: 209–241. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar