Displaying 101 - 130 of 130
-
Poletiek, F. H. (2005). The proof of the pudding is in the eating: Translating Popper's philosophy into a model for testing behaviour. In K. I. Manktelow, & M. C. Chung (
Eds. ), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp. 333-347). Hove: Psychology Press. -
Roelofs, A. (2005). Spoken word planning, comprehending, and self-monitoring: Evaluation of WEAVER++. In R. Hartsuiker, R. Bastiaanse, A. Postma, & F. Wijnen (
Eds. ), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech (pp. 42-63). Hove: Psychology press. -
Roelofs, A. (2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In A. Cutler (
Ed. ), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 313-330). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. -
Rowland, C. F. (2020). Introduction. In M. E. Poulsen (
Ed. ), The Jerome Bruner Library: From New York to Nijmegen. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Schiller, N. O. (2005). Verbal self-monitoring. In A. Cutler (
Ed. ), Twenty-first Century Psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 245-261). Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah [etc.]. -
Senft, G. (2020). Kampfschild - vayola. In T. Brüderlin, S. Schien, & S. Stoll (
Eds. ), Ausgepackt! 125Jahre Geschichte[n] im Museum Natur und Mensch (pp. 58-59). Freiburg: Michael Imhof Verlag.Additional information
Picture -
Senft, G. (2020). 32 Kampfschild - dance or war shield - vayola. In T. Brüderlin, & S. Stoll (
Eds. ), Ausgepackt! 125Jahre Geschichte[n] im Museum Natur und Mensch. Texte zur Ausstellung, Städtische Museen Freiburg, vom 20. Juni 2020 bis 10. Januar 2021 (pp. 76-77). Freiburg: Städtische Museen. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1978). Einige Prinzipien linguistischer Methodologie [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext, vol. 2 (pp. 187-207). Königstein: Scriptor. -
Senft, G. (1998). 'Noble Savages' and the 'Islands of Love': Trobriand Islanders in 'Popular Publications'. In J. Wassmann (
Ed. ), Pacific answers to Western hegemony: Cultural practices of identity construction (pp. 119-140). Oxford: Berg Publishers. -
Senft, G. (2005). Bronislaw Malinowski and linguistic pragmatics. In P. Cap (
Ed. ), Pragmatics today (pp. 139-155). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1978). Hyperkorrektheit der unteren Mittelschicht als Faktor im Sprachwandel; [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext, Vol.2 (pp. 129-146). Königstein: Scriptor. -
Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (
Eds. ), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (2005). The origin of grammatical terminology. In B. Smelik, R. Hofman, C. Hamans, & D. Cram (
Eds. ), A companion in linguistics: A Festschrift for Anders Ahlqvist on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday (pp. 185-196). Nijmegen: Stichting Uitgeverij de Keltische Draak. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (2005). The role of lexical data in semantics. In A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job, & P. R. Lutzeier (
Eds. ), Lexikologie / Lexicology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen/An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies. 2. Halbband / Volume 2 (pp. 1690-1696). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1983). Auxiliary system in Sranan. In F. Heny, & B. Richards (
Eds. ), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles / Vol. two, The scope, order, and distribution of English auxiliary verbs (pp. 219-251). Dordrecht: Reidel. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1978). Language and communication in primates. In D. J. Chivers, & J. Herbert (
Eds. ), Recent advances in primatology. Vol. 1: Behaviour (pp. 909-917). New York: Academic Press. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1978). Grammar as an underground process. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella, & W. J. M. Levelt (
Eds. ), The child's conception of language (pp. 201-223). Berlin: Springer. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1973). The comparative. In F. Kiefer, & N. Ruwet (
Eds. ), Generative grammar in Europe (pp. 528-564). Reidel: Dordrecht.Abstract
No idea is older in the history of linguistics than the thought that there is, somehow hidden underneath the surface of sentences, a form or a structure which provides a semantic analysis and lays bare their logical structure. In Plato’s Cratylus the theory was proposed, deriving from Heraclitus’ theory of explanatory underlying structure in physical nature, that words contain within themselves bits of syntactic structure giving their meanings. The Stoics held the same view and maintained moreover that every sentence has an underlying logical structure, which for them was the Aristotelian subject- predicate form. They even proposed transformational processes to derive the surface from the deep structure. The idea of a semantically analytic logical form underlying the sentences of every language kept reappearing in various guises at various times. Quite recently it re-emerged under the name of generative semantics. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1973). The new approach to the study of language. In B. Douglas (
Ed. ), Linguistics and the mind (pp. 11-20). Sydney: Sydney University Extension Board. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Towards a discourse-semantic account of donkey anaphora. In S. Botley, & T. McEnery (
Eds. ), New Approaches to Discourse Anaphora: Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2) (pp. 212-220). Lancaster: Universiy Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University. -
Stolker, C. J. J. M., & Poletiek, F. H. (1998). Smartengeld - Wat zijn we eigenlijk aan het doen? Naar een juridische en psychologische evaluatie. In F. Stadermann (
Ed. ), Bewijs en letselschade (pp. 71-86). Lelystad, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande. -
Suppes, P., Böttner, M., & Liang, L. (1998). Machine Learning of Physics Word Problems: A Preliminary Report. In A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (
Eds. ), Computing Natural Language (pp. 141-154). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Trilsbeek, P., & Wittenburg, P. (2005). Archiving challenges. In J. Gippert, N. Himmelmann, & U. Mosel (
Eds. ), Essentials of language documentation (pp. 311-335). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). On the Argument Structure of some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (
Eds. ), The Projection of Arguments - Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 225-263). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (
Ed. ), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 558-559). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Question particles in sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 564-567). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zeshan, U., Pfau, R., & Aboh, E. (2005). When a wh-word is not a wh-word: the case of Indian sign language. In B. Tanmoy (
Ed. ), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 2005 (pp. 11-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Irregular negatives in sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 560-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zinken, J., Rossi, G., & Reddy, V. (2020). Doing more than expected: Thanking recognizes another's agency in providing assistance. In C. Taleghani-Nikazm, E. Betz, & P. Golato (
Eds. ), Mobilizing others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities (pp. 253-278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Abstract
In informal interaction, speakers rarely thank a person who has complied with a request. Examining data from British English, German, Italian, Polish, and Telugu, we ask when speakers do thank after compliance. The results show that thanking treats the other’s assistance as going beyond what could be taken for granted in the circumstances. Coupled with the rareness of thanking after requests, this suggests that cooperation is to a great extent governed by expectations of helpfulness, which can be long-standing, or built over the course of a particular interaction. The higher frequency of thanking in some languages (such as English or Italian) suggests that cultures differ in the importance they place on recognizing the other’s agency in doing as requested.
Share this page