Displaying 101 - 108 of 108
-
Van Staden, M., Bowerman, M., & Verhelst, M. (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In S. C. Levinson, & D. Wilkins (
Eds. ), Grammars of Space (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1985). From sentence structure to intonation contour: An algorithm for computing pitch contours on the basis of sentence accents and syntactic structure. In B. Müller (
Ed. ), Sprachsynthese: Zur Synthese von natürlich gesprochener Sprache aus Texten und Konzepten (pp. 157-182). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Some universals of verb semantics. In R. Mairal, & J. Gil (
Eds. ), Linguistic universals (pp. 155-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. Friederici (
Eds. ), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 263-302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Weissenborn, J. (1986). Learning how to become an interlocutor. The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7–14 year old children. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (
Eds. ), Children's worlds and children's language (pp. 377-404). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign language of the world. In K. Brown (
Ed. ), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 11) (pp. 358-365). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Abstract
Although sign language-using communities exist in all areas of the world, few sign languages have been documented in detail. Sign languages occur in a variety of sociocultural contexts, ranging from sign languages used in closed village communities to officially recognized national sign languages. They may be grouped into language families on historical grounds or may participate in various language contact situations. Systematic cross-linguistic comparison reveals both significant structural similarities and important typological differences between sign languages. Focusing on information from non-Western countries, this article provides an overview of the sign languages of the world. -
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. -
Zwitserlood, I., & Van Gijn, I. (2006). Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In P. Ackema (
Ed. ), Arguments and Agreement (pp. 195-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Share this page