Ann, J. (1996). On the relation between the difficulty and the frequency of occurrence of handshapes in two sign languages. Lingua, 98, 19–41.
Ann, J. (2005). A functional explanation of Taiwan Sign Language handshape frequency. Language and Linguistics Taipei, 6(2), 217–246.
Baker, S. A., Idsardi, W. J., Golinkoff, R. M., & Petitto, L. A. (2005). The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 887–904.
Battison, R. (1978). Lexical borrowing in American Sign Language. Silver Spring, MD: Linstok Press.
Best, C. T., Mathur, G., Miranda, K. A., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2010). Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(3), 747–762.
Brentari, D., Poizner, H., & Kegl, J. (1995). Aphasic and Parkinsonian signing: Differences in phonological disruption. Brain and Language, 48, 69–105.
Cheek, D. A. (2001). The phonetics and phonology of handshape in American Sign Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.
Crasborn, O. (2001). Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
Dye, M. W. G. & Shih, S-I. (2006). Phonological priming in British Sign Language. In L. Goldstein, D. H. Whalen, & C. T. Best (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8 (pp. 241–264). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Eccarius, P. N. (2008). A constraint-based account of handshape contrast in sign languages (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University.
Eccarius, P. N., Bour, R., & Scheidt, R. A. (2012). Dataglove measurement of joint angles in sign language handshapes. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15(1), 39–72.
Emmorey, K., Bosworth, R., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 398–411.
Emmorey, K., Gertsberg, N., Korpics, F., & Wright, C. E. (2009). The influence of visual feedback and register changes on sign language production: A kinematic study with deaf signers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 187–203.
Emmorey, K., McCullough, S., & Brentari, D. (2003). Categorical perception in American sign language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(1), 21–45.
See AlsoSign Language PhonologyEmmorey, K., Thompson, R., & Colvin, R. (2008). Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14(2), 237–243.
Esteve-Gibert, N. & Prieto, P. (2013). Prosodic structure shapes the temporal realization of intonation and manual gesture movements, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 850–864.
Grosvald, M. & Corina, D. P. (2012). Exploring the movement dynamics of manual and oral articulation: Evidence from coarticulation. Laboratory Phonology, 3(1), 37–60.
Herrmann, A. & Steinbach, M. (2013). Nonmanuals in sign language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Hildebrandt, U. & Corina, D. (2002). Phonological similarity in American Sign Language, Language and Cognitive Processes, 17(6), 593–612.
Karppa, M., Jantunen, T., Koskela, M., Laaksonen, J., & Viitaniemi, V. (2011). Method for visualisation and analysis of hand and head movements in sign language video. In C. Kirchhof, Z. Malisz, & P. Wagner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Gesture and Speech in Interaction Conference (GESPIN 2011), Bielefeld, Germany.
Keane, J. (2014). Towards an articulatory model of handshape: What fingerspelling tells us about the phonetics and phonology of handshape in ASL (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago.
Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krivokapic, J., Tiede, M. K., & Tyrone, M. E. (2017). A kinematic study of prosodic structure in articulatory and manual gestures: Results from a novel method of data collection. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 3.
Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S., & Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 358–368.
Liddell, S. K. & Johnson, R. E. (1989). American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies, 64, 195–278.
Loehr, D. P. (2007). Aspects of rhythm in gesture and speech. Gesture, 7, 179–214.
Lu, P. & Huenerfauth, M. (2009). Accessible motion-capture glove calibration protocol for recording sign language data from Deaf subjects. Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2009), New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Lucas, C., Bayley, R., Rose, M., & Wulf, A. (2002). Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2, 407–440.
Mandel, M. (1979). Natural constraints in sign language phonology: Data from anatomy. Sign Language Studies, 24, 215–229.
Mandel, M. (1981). Phonotactics and morphophonology in American Sign Language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Berkeley.
Mauk, C. E. (2003). Undershoot in two modalities: Evidence from fast speech and fast signing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.
Mauk, C. E. & Tyrone, M. E. (2012). Location in ASL: Insights from phonetic variation. Sign Language & Linguistics, 15(1), 128–146.
Meier, R. P. (2002). Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In R. P. Meier, K. Cormier, & D. Quinto-Pozos (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken language (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mirus, G., Rathmann, C., & Meier, R. P. (2001). Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. In V. Dively, M. Metzger, S. Taub, & A. M. Baer (Eds.), Signed languages: Discoveries from international research (pp. 103–119). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Morford, J. P., Grieve-Smith, A. B., MacFarlane, J., Staley, J., & Waters, G. (2008). Effects of sign language experience on the perception of American Sign Language. Cognition, 109, 41–53.
Muir, L. J. & Richardson, I. E. G. (2005). Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(4), 390–401.
Ormel, E., Crasborn, O., & van der Kooij, E. (2013). Coarticulation of hand height in Sign Language of the Netherlands is affected by contact type. Journal of Phonetics, 41(3–4), 156–171.
Poizner, H., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (1990). Biological foundations of language: Clues from sign language. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 283–307.
Poizner, H., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1987). What the hands reveal about the brain. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
Russell, K., Wilkinson, E., & Janzen, T. (2011). ASL sign lowering as undershoot: A corpus study. Laboratory Phonology 2. 403–422.
Sanders, N. & Napoli, D. J. (2016). Reactive effort as a factor that shapes sign language lexicons. Language, 92(2), 275–297.
Sandler, W. (1993). A sonority cycle in American Sign Language. Phonology, 10, 243–279.
Siple, P. (1978). Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies, 19, 95–110.
Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American Deaf. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 3–37.
Sutton-Spence, R., & Boyes Braem, P. (2001). The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign language. Hamburg, Germany: Signum-Verlag.
Tkachman, O., Hall, K. C., Fuhrman, R., & Aonuki, Y. (2019). Visible amplitude: Towards quantifying prominence in sign language. Journal of Phonetics, 77, 100935.
Tyrone, M. E. (2014). Sign dysarthria: A speech disorder in signed language. In D. Quinto-Pozos (Ed.). Multilingual aspects of signed language communication and disorder (pp. 162–185). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Tyrone, M. E. & Mauk, C. E. (2010). Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics, 38, 317–328.
Tyrone, M. E. & Mauk, C. E. (2012). Phonetic reduction and variation in American Sign Language: A quantitative study of sign lowering. Laboratory Phonology, 3, 431–459.
Tyrone, M. E. & Mauk, C. E. (2016). The phonetics of head and body movement in the realization of American Sign Language signs. Phonetica, 73, 120–140.
Tyrone, M. E., Kegl, J., and Poizner, H. (1999). Interarticulator co-ordination in Deaf signers with Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia, 37(11), 1271–1283.
Tyrone, M. E. & Woll, B. (2008). Sign phonetics and the motor system: Implications from Parkinson’s disease. In J. Quer (Ed.). Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004 (pp. 43–68). Seedorf, Germany: Signum.
Udoff, J. A. (2014). Mouthings in American Sign Language: biomechanical and representational foundations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at San Diego.
Vogler, C. & Metaxas, D. (2004). Handshapes and movements: Multiple-channel ASL recognition. Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2915, pp. 247–258.
Weast, T. P. (2008). Questions in American Sign Language: A quantitative analysis of raised and lowered eyebrows (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at Arlington.
Wilbur, R. B. (1990). An experimental investigation of stressed sign production. International Journal of Sign Language, 1(1), 41–59.
Wilbur, R. B. & Schick, B. S. (1987). The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language and Speech, 30(4), 301–323.
Wilcox, S. (1992). The phonetics of fingerspelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
FAQs
Phonetics of Sign Language? ›
Phonetic studies of sign languages typically focus on the articulation of signs. The arms, hands, and fingers form very complex articulators that allow for many different articulations for any given phonological specification for hand configuration, movement, and location.
What are the 5 phonological features of ASL? ›In American Sign Language (ASL), we use the 5 Parameters of ASL to describe how a sign behaves within the signer's space. The parameters are handshape, palm orientation, movement, location, and expression/non-manual signals.
Do sign languages have phonological structure? ›Sign languages such as American Sign Language (ASL) are characterized by phonological processes analogous to, yet dissimilar from, those of oral languages.
Is there phonology in ASL? ›Sign languages suggest that the phonological component of the language faculty is a product of the ways in which the physical system, cognitive structure, and language use among people interact over time.
What are the phonological processes in sign language? ›This influence and subsequent variation in sign order is as a result of some phonological processes. A phonological process changes the appearance of an utterance by following well defined rules in phonology, but does not change the meaning of the utterance.
What are the 5 C's of ASL? ›The five “C” goal areas (Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities) stress the application of learning a language beyond the instructional setting.
What is an ASL phoneme? ›ASL Linguistics: phonemes
Phoneme: Smallest unit of language. For example, in the English word "dog," the letter "d" is a phoneme. Individual letters in English are phonemes because you can't break them into smaller parts and they have no meaning by themselves. ASL phonemes are comprised of: handshape.
Well there aren't phonemes in signed languages because phonemes are specifically sounds. But if you're asking whether signed languages have an equivalent of phonemes then indeed they do, and they are called cheremes.
Do morphemes exist in ASL? ›That is, the picture that seems to be emerging is that ASL morphemes vary in what combinations of articulators they use. Many morphemes specify the use of one or both hands, but some do not.
What is phonological loop sign language? ›The sign-based phonological loop comprises two components: a phonological store that retains information using sign-based phonological codes (e.g., handshape, orientation, location, and movement), and a manual articulatory rehearsal mechanism that refreshes information in the phonological store.
Does ASL have onomatopoeia? ›
In ASL, onomatopoeia refers to the mouth movements that characterize the sound an object or event makes in the context of an ASL narrative. For example, the production of the ASL word TUMBLE involves making a falling movement with the hands and the mouth movements BLA BA BA at the same time.
What language is ASL closest to? ›ASL is most closely related to French Sign Language (LSF). It has been proposed that ASL is a creole language of LSF, although ASL shows features atypical of creole languages, such as agglutinative morphology.
How is ASL structured? ›ASL Sentence Structure – Grammar Basic
In American Sign Language, the syntax (word order) is different than English. In general, the word order follows a “Subject” + “Verb” + “Object” sentence structure. You will also see the structure “Time” + “Subject” + “Verb” + “Object”, or “Time” can be at the end of a sentence.
- Plain Verbs edit.
- Inflecting/Indicating Verbs edit.
- Spatial Verbs edit.
One sign is created from the combination of four parameters, which are handshape, palm orientation, movement, and location.
What are the three components of sign language? ›As other sign languages, ASL has a manual component and a non-manual one (i.e., the face). The manual sign is further divided into three components: i) handshape, ii) motion, and iii) place of articulation (6; 8; 10; 38; 31; 30)2.
What are the phonological features? ›Phonological features are the basic building blocks of sounds. The system is designed to permit us to distinguish all possible speech sounds from each other, as well as to help us group sounds into natural classes. We can distinguish consonants from vowels using C for consonants and V for vowels.
What are phonological features examples? ›Phonological features also show patterns across languages. For example, in many languages, the voiced stops /b, d, g/ undergo spirantization and are realized as fricatives when they occur inter-vocalically. Classes are used to show the interactive patterns of features.
Why are the 5 parameters of ASL important? ›The five parameters of American Sign Language (ASL) are important because they influence meaning and comprehension. The five parameters of ASL include hand shape, palm orientation, location, movement, and non-manual signals or markers. These are the smallest units of sign language.
What are some features of ASL? ›- The key features of ASL are:
- hand shape.
- palm orientation.
- hand movement.
- hand location.
- gestural features like facial expression and posture.
