Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:30:30.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The phonology of focus in Sign Language of the Netherlands1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2013

ONNO CRASBORN  and
ELS VAN DER KOOIJ
ONNO CRASBORN*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Centre for Language Studies
ELS VAN DER KOOIJ*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen, Centre for Language Studies
*
Authors' addresses: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands[email protected][email protected]
Authors' addresses: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9103, NL-6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands[email protected][email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Signed languages are similar to spoken languages in the overall organisation of their grammars, displaying a prosodic level of organisation that is not isomorphic to the syntactic organisation. Their rich inventory of manual and non-manual features allows for a prolific range of functions if used prosodically. New data from Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT, Nederlandse Gebarentaal) are discussed to demonstrate that focused constituents are not marked by a single prosodic feature, but rather by multiple properties that can also have other functions in the prosodic phonology of the language. These findings are integrated in an overall model of sign language prosody that emphasises the distinction between phonetic appearance and phonological representation and that allows for the interaction of linguistic and paralinguistic cues in visual communication.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , November 2013 , pp. 515 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

The authors would like to acknowledge all the signers who participated in our data elicitation procedure, and in particular Johan Ros, Wim Emmerik, and Gerdinand Wagenaar for their intuitions on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Thanks to Wendy Sandler for initial discussions and elicitation materials used at the start of this study, to Carlos Gussenhoven for valuable advice and feedback, and to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their many helpful comments. This research was made possible by grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, grants 360-70-140 and 276-70-012) and the European Research Council (ERC Starting Researcher Grant 210373 awarded to Onno Crasborn). The authors have contributed equally to the present paper and are listed in alphabetical order.

References

REFERENCES

Aarons, Debra. 1994. Aspects of the syntax of American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Bahan, Benjamin. 1996. Non-manual realization of agreement in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Baker-Shenk, Charlotte. 1983. A micro-analysis of the nonmanual components of questions in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Baker[-Shenk], Charlotte & Padden, Carol. 1978. Focusing on the nonmanual components of American Sign Language. In Siple, Patricia (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 27–57. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bank, Richard, Crasborn, Onno & Hout, Roeland van. 2011. Variation in mouth actions with manual signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). Sign Language & Linguistics 14.2, 248–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellugi, Ursula & Fischer, Susan. 1972. A comparison of sign language and spoken language. Cognition 1, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane (ed.). 2010. Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bos, Heleen. 1995. Pronoun copy in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Bos, & Schermer, (eds.), 121–147.Google Scholar
Bos, Heleen & Schermer, Trude (eds.). 1995. Sign language research 1994: The Fourth European Congress on Sign Language Research, Munich, September 1–3, 1994. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny & Sutton-Spence, Rachel (eds.). 2001. The hands are the head of the mouth: The mouth as articulator in sign languages. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Sasha. 2010. The centrality of metrical structure in signaling information structure: A probabilistic perspective. Language 86, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channon, Rachel. 2002. Signs are single segments: Phonological representation and temporal sequencing in ASL and other sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 5.1, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coerts, Jane. 1992. Nonmanual grammatical markers: An analysis of interrogatives, negations and topicalisations in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Corina, David & Sandler, Wendy. 1993. On the nature of phonological structure in sign language. Phonology 10, 165–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covington, Virginia C. 1973. Juncture in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno. 2001. Phonetic implementation of phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. [Utrecht: LOT]Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Kooij, Els van der. 2013. Phonological feature spreading and prosodic domains in signed languages. Ms., Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Kooij, Els van der, Waters, Dafydd, Woll, Bencie & Mesch, Johanna. 2008a. Frequency distribution and spreading behavior of different types of mouth actions in three sign languages. Sign Language & Linguistics 11.1, 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Kooij, Els van der & Ros, Johan. 2012. On the weight of sentence-final prosodic words. Sign Language & Linguistics 15.1, 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Kooij, Els van der, Ros, Johan & Hoop, Helen de. 2009. Topic-agreement in NGT (Sign Language of the Netherlands). The Linguistic Review 26.2–3, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Sáfár, Anna. 2013. From dominant to right: The phonetics and phonology of hand choice in signed languages. Ms., Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno & Zwitserlood, Inge. 2008. The Corpus NGT: An online corpus for professionals and laymen. In Crasborn, Onno, Efthimiou, Eleni, Hanke, Thomas, Thoutenhoofd, Ernst & Zwitserlood, Inge (eds.), Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora: 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 44–49. Marrakech, Morocco: ELRA.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, Zwitserlood, Inge & Ros, Johan. 2008b. The Corpus NGT: An open access digital corpus of movies with annotations of Sign Language of the Netherlands. Nijmegen: Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen. http://hdl.handle.net/hdl:1839/00-0000-0000-0004-DF8E-6.Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Sandler, Wendy. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52.2–3, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Clerck, Liesbeth & Kooij, Els van der. 2005. Modifiable and intensifier self in Dutch and Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Doetjes, Jenny & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 61–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar. Part 1: The structure of the clause, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Katalin, É. Kiss. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.2, 245–273.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1972. Universal and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In Cole, James K. (ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, 207–283. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul (ed.). 1982. Emotion in the human face, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul. 1993. Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist 484, 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82.1, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Word order and word order change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University Texas Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lynn A. 1976. The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 125–148. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1985. Dominance relations and discourse structures. In Stokoe, William C. & Volterra, Virginia (eds.), The 3rd International Symposium on Sign Language Research (SLR '83), 79–90. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50.3–4, 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1980. Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50.3–4, 303–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeannette K. 1999. On different kinds of focus. In Bosch, Peter & van der Sandt, Rob (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 293–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode, and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19, 377–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2003. Perceiving paralinguistic meaning. In Mettouchi, Amina & Ferré, Gaëlle (eds.), Interfaces prosodiques/Prosodic Interfaces (IP2003), Nantes, 47–49.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2008. Types of focus in English. In Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew & Buring, Daniel (eds.), Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation, 83–100. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Teeuw, Renske. 2008. A moraic and a syllabic H-tone in Yucatec Maya. In Herrera, Z. Esther & Martín Butragueño, Pedro (eds.), Fonología instrumental: patrones fónicos y variación, 49–71. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9, 47–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Annika. 2010. Nonmanual aspects of focus particles in sign languages. Presented at the 10th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR), Purdue University, USA.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der. 1993. Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10, 209–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kooij, Els van der. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University. [Utrecht: LOT]Google Scholar
Kooij, Els van der & Crasborn, Onno. 2008. Syllables and the word prosodic system in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Lingua 118, 1307–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooij, Els van der, Onno, Crasborn & Emmerik, Wim. 2006. Explaining prosodic body leans in Sign Language of the Netherlands: Pragmatics required. Journal of Pragmatics 38.10, 1598–1614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooij, Els van der & van der Hulst, Harry. 2005. On the internal and external organization of sign language segments: Some modality-specific properties. In van Oostendorp, Marc & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), The internal organization of phonological segments, 153–180. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahmer, Emiel & Swerts, Marc. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Communication 34, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, Caroline & Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank, Skopeteas, Stavros & Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Encoding information structure in Yucatec Maya: On the interplay of prosody and syntax. In Ishihara, Shinichiro, Jannedy, Stefanie & Schwarz, Anne (eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 8, 187–208. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. 1980. American Sign Language syntax. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Johnson, Robert E.. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4, 445–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K. & Johnson, Robert E.. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64, 195–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 2004. Structure and acquisition of focus constructions in ASL and LSB. Presented at the 8th Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Meurant, Laurence. 2008. Le regard en langue des signes. Anaphore en langue des signes française de Belgique (LSFB): morphologie, syntaxe, énonciation. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur/Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter & Veenstra, Tonjes. 1995. Serial verbs. In Arends, Jacques, Muysken, Pieter & Smith, Norval (eds.), Pidgins and creoles: An introduction, 289–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Kegl, Judy, MacLaughlin, Dawn, Bahan, Benjamin & Lee, Robert G.. 2000. The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Sandler, Wendy. 1999. Prosody in Israeli Sign Language. Language and Speech 42.2–3, 143–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 2008. Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian language. In Quer, Josep (ed.), Signs of the time: Selected papers from TISLR 2004, 177–190. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1984. An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 in voice. Phonetica 41, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormel, Ellen & Crasborn, Onno. 2012. Prosodic correlates of sentence in signed languages: A literature review and suggestions for new types of studies. Sign Language Studies 12, 109–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1992. Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 407–442.Google Scholar
Petronio, Karen. 1991. A focus position in ASL. In Bobaljik, Jonathan D. (ed.), The Third Student Conference in Linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 14), 211–226. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Petronio, Karen. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Steinbach, Markus. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Quer, Josep. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their prosodic and grammatical roles. In Brentari, (ed.), 381–402.Google Scholar
Piater, Justus, Hoyoux, Thomas & Du, Wei. 2010. Video analysis for continuous sign language recognition. Presented at the 4th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Corpora and Sign Language Technologies, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonetics and phonology of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadros, Ronice Müller de. 1999. Phrase structure of Brazilian sign language. Porto Alegre: Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul.Google Scholar
Reilly, Judy S. & Bellugi, Ursula. 1996. Competition on the face: Affect and language in ASL motherese. Journal of Child Language 23, 219–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reilly, Judy S., McIntire, Marina & Bellugi, Ursula. 1990. The acquisition of conditionals in American Sign Language: Grammaticized facial expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 11, 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rietveld, Toni & van Heuven, Vincent J. J. P.. 1997. Algemene fonetiek. Bussum: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Asssociation with focus. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussets, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sande, Inge van de. 2009. Lexically bound mouth actions in Sign Language of the Netherlands. MA thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sande, Inge van de & Crasborn, Onno. 2009. Lexically bound mouth actions in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A comparison between different registers and age groups. Linguistics in the Netherlands 26, 78–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological representation of the sign: Linearity and nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999a. Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In Hall, T. Alan & Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.), Studies on the phonological word, 223–254. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999b. Prosody in two natural language modalities. Language and Speech 42.2–3, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1999c. The medium and the message: The prosodic interpretation of linguistic content in Israeli Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 2.2, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2005. Prosodic constituency and intonation in a sign language. In Leuninger, Helen & Happ, Daniela (eds.), Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung, 13th edn., 59–86. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2006. Phonology, phonetics and the nondominant hand. In Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, Douglas H. & Best, Catherine T. (eds.), Laboratory phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence, 185–211. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2010. Prosody and syntax in sign languages. Transactions of the Philological Society 108.3, 298–328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandler, Wendy & Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2006. Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermer, Trude. 1990. In search of a language: Influences from spoken Dutch on Sign Language of the Netherlands. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Schermer, Trude & Koolhof, Corline. 1989. The reality of time lines: Aspects of tense in SLN. In Prillwitz, Sigmund & Vollhaber, Thomas (eds.), European sign language research, 295–306. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
Siple, Patricia. 1978. Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Language Studies 19, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. Information structure and the syntax–phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31.4, 649–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton-Spence, Rachel & Woll, Bencie. 1999. The linguistics of British Sign Language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swart, Henriëtte de & Hoop, Helen de. 1995. Topic and focus. Glot International 1.7, 3–7.Google Scholar
Thompson, Robin, Emmorey, Karen & Robert Kluender, K.. 2009. Learning to look: The acquisition of eye gaze agreement during the production of ASL verbs. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrone, Martha E. & Mauk, Claude E.. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 38, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vallduví, Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vogt-Svendsen, Marit. 2001. A comparison of moouth gestures and mouthigs in Norwegian Sign Language (NSL). In Braem, Boyes & Sutton-Spence, (eds.), 9–40.Google Scholar
Vos, Connie de, Kooij, Els van der & Crasborn, Onno. 2009. Mixed signals: Combining linguistic and affective functions of eyebrows in questions in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Language and Speech 52.2–3, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waleschkowski, Eva. 2009. Focus in German Sign Language. Presented at the Workshop on Non-manuals in Sign Languages, Frankfurt a/Main.Google Scholar
Weast, Traci P. 2008. Questions in American Sign Language: A quantitative analysis of raised and lowered eyebrows. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1990a. Intonation and focus in American Sign Language. ESCOL 1990, 320–331.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1990b. An experimental investigation of stressed sign production. International Journal of Sign Linguistics 1.1, 41–59.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1994. Foregrounding structures in ASL. Journal of Pragmatics 22.6, 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1995. Why so-called ‘rhetorical questions’ are neither rhetorical nor questions. In Bos, & Schermer, (eds.), 149–170.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 1999. Stress in ASL: Empirical evidence and linguistic issues. Language and Speech 42.2–3, 229–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2000. Phonological and prosodic layering of nonmanuals in American Sign Language. In Emmorey, Karen & Lane, Harlan (eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, 215–244. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Patschke, Cynthia G.. 1998. Body leans and the marking of contrast in American Sign Language. Journal of Pragmatics 30, 275–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Patschke, Cynthia G.. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 2.1, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. & Schick, Brenda S.. 1987. The effects of linguistic stress on ASL signs. Language and Speech 30.4, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woll, Bencie. 2001. The sign that dares to speak its name: Echo phonology in British Sign Language (BSL). In Braem, Boyes & Sutton-Spence, (eds.), 87–98.Google Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2007. Investigating prosodic focus marking in Northern Sotho. In Aboh, Enoch O., Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte (eds.), Focus strategies in African languages: The interaction of focus and grammar in Niger-Congo and Afro-Asiatic, 55–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar