Displaying 101 - 116 of 116
-
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. (1997). Magic, missionaries, and religion - Some observations from the Trobriand Islands. In T. Otto, & A. Borsboom (
Eds. ), Cultural dynamics of religious change in Oceania (pp. 45-58). Leiden: KITLV press. -
Senft, G. (1997). Introduction. In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Referring to space - Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Clarendon Press. -
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. (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. (1979). Wat is semantiek? In B. Tervoort (
Ed. ), Wetenschap en taal: Een nieuwe reeks benaderingen van het verschijnsel taal (pp. 135-162). Muiderberg: Coutinho. -
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. -
Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). Systems, automata, and grammars. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics: Vol. 1 (pp. 187-243). Amsterdam: North Holland. -
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 -
Thomassen, A. J., & Kempen, G. (1979). Memory. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics (pp. 75-137 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. -
Trabasso, T., & Ozyurek, A. (1997). Communicating evaluation in narrative understanding. In T. Givon (
Ed. ), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 268-302). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. -
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. -
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